HomeMy Public PortalAboutCanyon Springs DEIR - Complete Version for PrintingCanyon Springs Draft EIR
December 2012 | Prepared For:
Town of Truckee
Canyon Springs Draft EIR
December 2012 | Prepared For:
Town of Truckee
Orange County • Northern California • Los Angeles/Downtown • Los Angeles/West • Inland Empire • San Diego
1625 Shattuck Avenue, Suite 300 | Berkeley, California 94709 | 510.848.3815 | 510.848.4315 (f)www.planningcenter.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS
i
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1-1
2. REPORT SUMMARY ................................................................................. 2-1
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................... 3-1
4. ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION ............................................................... 4-1
4.1 AESTHETICS .................................................................................. 4.1-1
4.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES .................................... 4.2-1
4.3 AIR QUALITY ................................................................................ 4.3-1
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ................................................................ 4.4-1
4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES .................................................................. 4.5-1
4.6 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY ................................................... 4.6-1
4.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ........................................................ 4.7-1
4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ........................................ 4.8-1
4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY .............................................. 4.9-1
4.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING ............................................................ 4.10-1
4.11 NOISE .......................................................................................... 4.11-1
4.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING ......................................................... 4.12-1
4.13 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION ................................................ 4.13-1
4.14 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC .................................................... 4.14-1
4.15 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ..................................................... 4.15-1
5. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ............................................. 5-1
6. CEQA-REQUIRED ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS ........................................ 6-1
7. REPORT PREPARATION ........................................................................... 7-1
Appendices
Appendix A Notice of Preparation (NOP)
Appendix B NOP/Scoping Comment Matrix and Letters
Appendix C Draft Design Guidelines
Appendix D Wetland Delineation
Appendix E Mule Deer Reports and References
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ii
Appendix F Air Quality Data
Appendix G Noise Data
Appendix H Greenhouse Gas Emission Data
Appendix I Traffic Data
Appendix J Geotechnical & Hazards Data
Appendix K Hydrology and Water Quality Data
Appendix L Cultural Resources Data
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
TABLE OF CONTENTS
iii
List of Figures
Figure 3-1 Project Location and Vicinity Map ....................................... 3-2
Figure 3-2 General Plan Land Use Map .................................................. 3-3
Figure 3-3 Zoning Map ........................................................................... 3-4
Figure 3-4 Existing and Surrounding Land Uses .................................... 3-8
Figure 3-5 Tentative Map ...................................................................... 3-11
Figure 3-6 Project Site Plan ................................................................... 3-12
Figure 3-7 Reforestation Plan ............................................................... 3-15
Figure 3-8 Open Space Map .................................................................. 3-19
Figure 3-9 Circulation Map .................................................................. 3-21
Figure 3-10 Roadway Sections ................................................................ 3-23
Figure 3-11A Utilities and Drainage Map ................................................. 3-27
Figure 3-11B Utilities and Drainage Map ................................................. 3-28
Figure 3-12 Off-Site Utilities Map .......................................................... 3-30
Figure 3-13 On-Site Blue Line Seasonal Waterways ............................... 3-32
Figure 3-14 Project Phasing Map ............................................................ 3-34
Figure 4.1-1 Scenic Resources in Truckee Area ..................................... 4.1-11
Figure 4.1-2 Viewpoint Location Map .................................................. 4.1-14
Figure 4.1-3 Viewpoint 1 Martis Peak Road .......................................... 4.1-15
Figure 4.1-4 Viewpoint 2 Open Space from Glenshire Road ................ 4.1-16
Figure 4.1-5 Viewpoint 3 Winchester Court ......................................... 4.1-17
Figure 4.1-6 Viewpoint 4 Edinburgh Drive ........................................... 4.1-18
Figure 4.1-7 Viewpoint 5 Belford Place ................................................. 4.1-19
Figure 4.1-8 Viewpoint 6 Open Space from Southeast Corner of
Project Site ......................................................................... 4.1-20
Figure 4.4-1 Plant Communities ............................................................ 4.4-23
Figure 4.4-2 Jurisdictional Waters ......................................................... 4.4-36
Figure 4.4-3 Plant Communities and the Proposed Site Plan ................ 4.4-41
Figure 4.4-4 Jurisdictional Waters and the Proposed Site Plan ............. 4.4-42
Figure 4.6-1 Soils Map ............................................................................ 4.6-7
Figure 4.6-2 Geologic Map .................................................................... 4.6-11
Figure 4.8-1 Wildland Fire Hazards Map .............................................. 4.8-10
Figure 4.9-1 FEMA Flood Zones ........................................................... 4.9-17
Figure 4.11-1 Noise Measurement Map ................................................. 4.11-13
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
TABLE OF CONTENTS
iv
Figure 4.13-1 Publicly Accessible Trail Map ........................................ 4.13-39
Figure 4.14-1 Lane Configuration and Traffic Control ........................ 4.14-12
Figure 4.14-2 2011 Summer PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Without Project .............................................................. 4.14-18
Figure 4.14-3 2031 PM Traffic Volumes Without Project .................... 4.14-22
Figure 4.14-4 2011 Project Generated PM Traffic Volumes ................. 4.14-32
Figure 4.14-5 2031 Project Generated PM Traffic Volumes ................. 4.14-33
Figure 4.14-6 2011 PM Traffic Volumes with Project .......................... 4.14-37
Figure 4.14-7 Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road Left Turn
Acceleration Lane Conceptual Design ........................... 4.14-43
Figure 4.14-8 Whitehorse Road/Glenshire Drive Intersection Sight
Distance .......................................................................... 4.14-56
Figure 4.14-9 2031 PM Traffic Volumes With Project ......................... 4.14-62
Figure 5-1 Alternative B (Edinburgh Drive Open Access) Site
Plan ...................................................................................... 5-13
Figure 5-2 2011 Project Net Impact on PM Traffic Volumes with
Edinburgh Access ................................................................ 5-21
Figure 5-3 2031 Project Net Impact on PM Traffic Volumes with
Edinburgh Access ................................................................ 5-22
Figure 5-4 2011 PM Traffic Volumes with Edinburgh Access ............. 5-23
Figure 5-5 2031 PM Traffic Volumes with Edinburgh Access ............. 5-24
Figure 5-6 Alternative C (No Open Space Crossing) Site Plan ............ 5-27
Figure 5-7 Alternative D (Medium Density Cluster) Site Plan ............. 5-35
Figure 5-8 Alternative E (Reduced Density) Site Plan .......................... 5-45
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
TABLE OF CONTENTS
v
List of Tables
Table 2-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ................... 2-11
Table 4.2-1 Truckee General Plan Policies Pertaining to
Agriculture and Forestry .................................................... 4.2-4
Table 4.3-1 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards ............. 4.3-3
Table 4.3-2 Truckee General Plan Goals and Policies Pertaining
to Air quality ..................................................................... 4.3-10
Table 4.3-3 NSAQMD Nevada County Attainment Status ................ 4.3-14
Table 4.3-4 Ambient Air Quality at the Truckee Monitoring
Station ................................................................................ 4.3-19
Table 4.3-5 Health Effects and Sources of Air Pollutants .................... 4.3-21
Table 4.3-6 Project Regional Emissions in Pounds Per Day ................ 4.3-30
Table 4.3-7 Mitigated Project Emissions in Pounds per Day ............... 4.3-36
Table 4.4-1 Truckee General Plan Policies Pertaining to
Biological Resources ........................................................... 4.4-5
Table 4.4-2 Special-Status Species Potentially Occurring on the
Canyon Springs Subdivision Project Site .......................... 4.4-10
Table 4.5-1 Truckee General Plan Policies Pertaining to Cultural
Resources ............................................................................ 4.5-5
Table 4.6-1 Truckee General Plan Policies Pertaining to Geology,
Soils, and Seismic Hazards .................................................. 4.6-5
Table 4.7-1 Truckee General Plan Policies Pertaining to
Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................. 4.7-6
Table 4.7-2 Global Warming Potentials ................................................ 4.7-9
Table 4.7-3 Project Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions in
Metric Tons Per Year ........................................................ 4.7-16
Table 4.7-4 Project Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...................... 4.7-20
Table 4.8-1 Truckee General Plan Policies Pertaining to Hazards
and Hazardous Materials .................................................... 4.8-6
Table 4.9-1 Truckee General Plan Goals and Policies Pertaining
to Hydrology and Water Quality...................................... 4.9-10
Table 4.10-1 Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan Policy
Consistency Analysis ....................................................... 4.10-11
Table 4.11-1 Summary of EPA Noise Levels ......................................... 4.11-4
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
TABLE OF CONTENTS
vi
Table 4.11-2 Summary of Human Effects in Areas Exposed to
55 dBA Ldn ....................................................................... 4.11-4
Table 4.11-3 Land Use Compatibility Guidelines ................................. 4.11-6
Table 4.11-4 Town of Truckee General Plan Goals and Policies
Relevant to Noise ............................................................. 4.11-7
Table 4.11-5 Noise Standard by Receiving Land Use............................ 4.11-9
Table 4.11-6 Ambient Noise Monitoring Results, May 23-24, 2006 ... 4.11-14
Table 4.11-7 Existing Traffic Noise Levels .......................................... 4.11-16
Table 4.11-8 2011 Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels ........................... 4.11-18
Table 4.11-9 2031 Without Project Traffic Noise Levels .................... 4.11-19
Table 4.11-10 2031 Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels ........................... 4.11-20
Table 4.11-11 Typical Construction Equipment Maximum Noise
Levels .............................................................................. 4.11-25
Table 4.12-1 Truckee General Plan Policies Pertaining to
Population and Housing ................................................... 4.12-2
Table 4.13-1 Town of Truckee General Plan Goals and Policies
Relevant to Fire and Emergency Services ......................... 4.13-4
Table 4.13-2 Town of Truckee General Plan Goals and Policies
Relevant to Police Services ............................................. 4.13-13
Table 4.13-3 Town of Truckee General Plan Goals and Policies
Relevant to School Services ............................................ 4.13-22
Table 4.13-4 Town of Truckee General Plan Goals and Policies
Relevant to Park and Recreation Services ...................... 4.13-29
Table 4.13-5 Truckee Public Parks and Recreation Facilities ............. 4.13-34
Table 4.14-1 Truckee General Plan Goals and Policies Pertaining
to Transportation and Traffic ........................................... 4.14-4
Table 4.14-2 Town of Truckee Traffic Impact Analysis
Requirements and Criteria ................................................ 4.14-9
Table 4.14-3 2011 Traffic Volumes During AM and School PM
Without Project .............................................................. 4.14-19
Table 4.14-4 2031 Traffic Volumes During AM and School PM
Without Project .............................................................. 4.14-23
Table 4.14-5 Historical Traffic Data (2006- 2010) ............................... 4.14-26
Table 4.14-6 Project Trip Generation ................................................. 4.14-30
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
TABLE OF CONTENTS
vii
Table 4.14-7 Project Generated Traffic Volumes During AM and
School PM Peak Hours ................................................... 4.14-34
Table 4.14-8 2011 with Project Traffic Volumes During AM and
School PM Peak Hours ................................................... 4.14-38
Table 4.14-9 2011 Intersection Level of Service ................................... 4.14-39
Table 4.14-10 Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road Intersection LOS
with Center Turn Lanea .................................................. 4.14-44
Table 4.14-11 2011 Roadway Level of Service Analysis ......................... 4.14-49
Table 4.14-12 Construction Trip Generation ........................................ 4.14-53
Table 4.14-13 2031 Traffic Volumes During AM and School PM
Peak Hour With Project .................................................. 4.14-63
Table 4.14-14 2031 Intersection Level of Service ................................... 4.14-64
Table 4.14-15 2031 Roadway Level of Service Analysis ......................... 4.14-68
Table 4.15-1 Town of Truckee General Plan Goals and Policies
Relevant to Water Supply Services .................................... 4.15-6
Table 4.15-2 Town of Truckee General Plan Goals and Policies
Relevant to Wastewater Services ..................................... 4.15-19
Table 4.15-3 Town of Truckee General Plan Goals and Policies
Relevant to Solid Waste Services ..................................... 4.15-26
Table 4.15-6 Town of Truckee General Plan Goals and Policies
Relevant to Energy .......................................................... 4.15-33
Table 5-1 Alternatives Impacts Comparisons ........................................ 5-6
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
TABLE OF CONTENTS
viii
1 INTRODUCTION
1-1
This Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) provides an assessment
of potential environmental consequences of the construction of the proposed
Canyon Springs Subdivision project (the project). The Town of Truckee
(Town) is the lead agency for the project. This Draft EIR is intended to in-
form the Town of Truckee Planning Commission and Town Council, re-
sponsible agencies and the public-at-large of the nature of the project and its
potential impacts. Additionally, this Draft EIR identifies mitigation measures
that, if adopted, would reduce or avoid potentially significant impacts and
examines alternatives to the proposed project. This Draft EIR has been pre-
pared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
the State CEQA Guidelines and the Town’s local procedures for implement-
ing CEQA.
This Draft EIR will be available for review by the public and interested par-
ties, agencies, and organizations for a minimum 60-day comment period.
Referenced technical studies and other cited materials are available for review
in the project file at the Town of Truckee Community Development De-
partment, 10183 Truckee Airport Road in Truckee.
During the comment period, the public is invited to submit written or e-mail
comments on the Draft EIR to the contact information provided below. The
Town of Truckee Community Development Department will also hold two
public hearings on the Draft EIR during the review period. The public is
invited to attend the hearings to offer oral comments on the Draft EIR.
Written comments should be submitted to:
Ms. Denyelle Nishimori
Town of Truckee Community Development Department
10183 Truckee Airport Road
Truckee, CA 96161
Fax: 530-582-7889
Email: dnishimori@townoftruckee.com
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
INTRODUCTION
1-2
A. Environmental Review Process
The Town of Truckee Community Development Department issued a No-
tice of Preparation (NOP) on Wednesday, April 20, 2011, initiating a scoping
period for this Draft EIR which extended from April 20 through May 20,
2011. Two separate scoping meetings were held on Wednesday, May 4, 2011:
1) for responsible agencies, and 2) for all other agencies, organizations, and
members of the public. During the scoping period oral and written com-
ments were received on the proposed project, project alternatives, and the
scope of the EIR. Comments were used for the preparation of this Draft EIR.
Following the close of the 60-day comment period on this Draft EIR, a Final
Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) will be prepared that contains all
substantive comments received on the Draft EIR, written responses to those
comments, and necessary changes or additions to the text and analysis in the
Draft EIR. The Final EIR will be made available to Town of Truckee Plan-
ning Commission and Town Council for review and certification prior to
their consideration of project entitlements.
B. Report Organization
This Draft EIR is organized into the following chapters:
¤ Chapter 1: Introduction. Provides an introduction and overview of the
Draft EIR document.
¤ Chapter 2: Report Summary. Provides a synopsis of the environmental
impacts from the proposed project, describes recommended mitigation
measures, and indicates the level of significance of impacts before and af-
ter mitigation.
¤ Chapter 3: Project Description. Describes the proposed project in detail,
including the location, background information, primary objectives and
structural and technical characteristics.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
INTRODUCTION
1-3
¤ Chapter 4: Environmental Evaluation. Provides a description of the exist-
ing environmental setting, an analysis of the potential direct, indirect,
and cumulative environmental impacts of the proposed project and pre-
sents recommended mitigation measures to reduce their significance.
¤ Chapter 5: Alternatives to the Proposed Project. Considers alternatives to
the proposed project, including the CEQA-required “No Project Alterna-
tive,” and explains why some alternatives were not carried forward for
detailed evaluation.
¤ Chapter 6: CEQA-Required Assessment Conclusions. Discusses growth in-
ducement, unavoidable significant effects, and significant irreversible
changes as a result of the project.
¤ Chapter 7: Report Preparation. Identifies the preparers of the Draft EIR.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
INTRODUCTION
1-4
2 REPORT SUMMARY
2-1
This summary presents an overview of the proposed project and conclusions
of the analysis contained in Chapter 4, Environmental Evaluation. This
chapter also summarizes areas of controversy and alternatives to the project.
For a complete description of the project, please consult Chapter 3, Project
Description. For more information about project alternatives, please consult
Chapter 5, Alternatives to the Proposed Project.
A. The Proposed Project
1. Site Proposal History
Over the past 20 years, the project site has been the subject of similar residen-
tial development proposals, the first of which was previously approved by the
Nevada County Board of Supervisors in 1990. Past projects seeking approval
by the Town of Truckee (Town) include the Tahoe Boca proposal in 2003
and the Canyon Springs proposal in 2007.
The Tahoe Boca (2003) proposal consisted of a tentative map, planned devel-
opment, and easement abandonment application to create 250 for-sale single-
family housing lots, including 19 affordable housing lots.
The Canyon Springs (2007) proposal, an application similar to the Tahoe Bo-
ca proposal, consisted of 213 housing lots, including 32 affordable housing
lots. A Draft EIR was prepared for the Canyon Springs (2007) proposal and
public and agency comment was submitted to the Town. However, the ma-
jority of property changed ownership in 2009 and the original application,
which was the subject of the 2007 Draft EIR, was closed, and the Draft EIR
was withdrawn.
A summary of the proposed project’s features is provided below. A compari-
son of the more noteworthy changes between the proposed project and the
previous proposals was provided on the Notice of Preparation, which is in-
cluded in Appendix A of this Draft EIR. A complete description of the pro-
ject is included in Chapter 3 of this Draft EIR.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
REPORT SUMMARY
2-2
2. Project Characteristics
The proposed project includes the approval of a tentative map application to
subdivide six parcels comprising 283.76 acres. The project would result in the
phased construction of a new residential subdivision with a total of 185 resi-
dential lots and 4.5 miles of public trails in the Town. The new subdivision
would be organized around new streets, and public open spaces and wildlife
corridors, as shown on the project site plan (Figure 3-5 in Chapter 3 of this
Draft EIR). Supporting infrastructure, including roadways, on- and off-site
utilities, and trails, would span an eight-year period and coincide with imple-
mentation of eight development phases and recordation of up to eight final
maps. Key project features include:
¤ Housing Lots: The project would include 185 housing lots ranging in
size from 14,000 to 31,000 square feet. 177 of the lots would be for-sale
market-rate lots and eight lots would be affordable housing lots to be
sold, developed, or donated for future multi-family attached housing.
¤ Open Space and Recreation Area: Under the proposed project a total
of 176.17 acres is included as public open space. The public open space
would be permanently reserved as part of the home owner association-
maintained common area and would serve as a wildlife habitat and
movement corridor. The project includes a 24,015-square-foot recrea-
tional area to be centrally located within the project site to serve as a
neighborhood center and would be available for use by future residents.
The recreational area could include features such as a tot-lot, swing set,
play structure, picnic shelter, pool, clubhouse, and/or multi-use play
court.
¤ Vehicular Circulation: New internal roads would be created through-
out the project area and would connect at various points with two links
to the surrounding area. The project would include two vehicular access
points—one for emergency access only and one for unrestricted access.
The primary access point would connect to Martis Peak Road to the
north of the project site. The secondary, emergency-access-only, access
point would connect to Edinburgh Drive to the west of the project site.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
REPORT SUMMARY
2-3
The project’s roadway network includes four bridges, all of which would
be located outside of any mapped 100-year floodplains.
¤ Trail System: The project includes a publicly-accessible 4.5-mile trail
system made up of both 2-foot-wide soft-surface earthen trails and 12-
foot-wide gravel trails. The public access points utilize existing trail
alignments to provide connectivity to the surrounding community for
permitted and lawful use of on-site trails by the public. The trails would
be accessible for summer and winter non-motorized uses such as hiking,
running, mountain biking, equestrian use, cross country skiing, and
snowshoeing. Motorized vehicles would not be allowed.
¤ Public Services and Utilities: Public services and utilities for the project
site would be provided by:
Ÿ Truckee Fire Protection District
Ÿ Truckee Police Department
Ÿ Tahoe Truckee Unified School District
Ÿ Truckee-Donner Recreation and Park District
Ÿ Truckee-Donner Public Utilities District (water)
Ÿ Truckee Sanitary District (sewer)
Ÿ Tahoe-Truckee Sanitary Agency (sewer)
Ÿ Tahoe Truckee Sierra Disposal (solid waste)
Ÿ Southwest Gas (natural gas)
Ÿ Liberty Energy – California Pacific Electric Company (electricity)
Ÿ AT&T (telephone)
Ÿ Suddenlink Communications (cable)
There is currently no utility infrastructure in place to serve the project.
The project will include the installation of on-site, underground infra-
structure for natural gas, electricity, water, sewer, telephone and cable,
and off-site, underground improvements to the Truckee-Donner Public
Utilities District (water) network.
The project includes the establishment of the Canyon Springs Home-
owners Association, which would provide the following services:
Ÿ Snow removal and road maintenance, until revenue neutrality is
reached;
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
REPORT SUMMARY
2-4
Ÿ Drainage maintenance;
Ÿ Trail and open space maintenance; and
Ÿ Recreational area maintenance.
¤ Drainage and Grading: All proposed building envelopes would fall
outside of the Town-required 50-foot setback from designated 100-year
floodplains for two blue-line waterways.1 A minimum 50-foot building
setback would be maintained along all other on-site ephemeral drainages,
as shown in Figure 3-6.2 Surface drainage from impervious surfaces locat-
ed within the proposed restricted building envelopes will be collected,
treated, and contained on-site using low impact development methods of
drainage treatment. Infiltration trenches, rainwater gardens, and small
retention, or subsurface structures, would be utilized. Treatment of
paved roadway surfaces will be directed to onsite retention basins, infil-
tration trenches, and/or bio-swales designed to accommodate a 20-year, 1-
hour storm event per Town and the Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB), Lahontan Region requirements. Grading for on- and
off-site infrastructure and roadways would be balanced on-site, although
temporary stockpiles would be used.
B. Areas of Controversy
The following is a discussion of issues that are likely to be of particular con-
cern to agencies and interested members of the public during the environmen-
tal review process. While every concern applicable to the CEQA process is
addressed in this EIR, this list is not necessarily exhaustive, but rather at-
tempts to capture those concerns that are likely to generate the greatest inter-
1 A blue-line stream is one which flows for most or all of the year and is
marked on a 7.5-minute series USGS topographic quadrangle map with a solid blue
line.
2 A 50-foot setback is a requirement imposed where structures proposed on par-
cels with an average depth of 175 feet or more shall be set back a minimum of 50 feet
from the edge of the 100-year floodplain of any stream, per Town of Truckee Devel-
opment Code Section 18.38.040.A.2.a.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
REPORT SUMMARY
2-5
est based on the input received during the scoping process for this EIR and
the comments provided on the 2007 Canyon Springs Draft EIR.
¤ Aesthetics/Visual Resources. The project would involve the develop-
ment of privately owned undeveloped land to a residential subdivision.
Some members of the public have expressed concern regarding the visual
impacts of developing on the steep slopes, tree removal, and loss of natu-
ral scenery, within the project site. Residents have requested a larger
greenbelt between the proposed project and existing homes to compen-
sate for loss of visual resources, and that new buildings are designed to be
consistent with the ‘character of Truckee.’
¤ Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Comments expressed con-
cerns regarding air quality impacts as a result of heavy construction due
to the release of nitrogen oxide (NOx) and particulate matter (PM10 and
PM2.5) chemicals. There is also an identified concern from the communi-
ty for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and achieving a net zero
energy project and climate change-related impacts as a result of tree re-
moval.
¤ Biological Resources/Wetland Habitat/Wildlife Corridor. Concerns
were voiced over impacts to the Loyalton-Truckee mule deer herd habi-
tat and call for establishment of a migration corridor to protect the mule
deer. Some comments express concern for increases in bear activity and
request “bear proof” trash cans in new residences (with locked lids) to
keep bear and dangerous wildlife away.
¤ Cultural Resources. Some comments identify the need for consultation
and review with the Native American Heritage community and for an
evaluation to assess if there are any archeological resources present on the
property.
¤ Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Some members of the public voiced
concern over an electrical substation located near future development
parcel and its effects on the health of citizens. There is also concern that
the project would compromise safety in case of fire and will limit emer-
gency evacuation routes.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
REPORT SUMMARY
2-6
¤ Hydrology and Water Quality. Some members of the public expressed
concerns regarding the provisional distribution of water to the subdivid-
ed areas and its effects on the current residents’ water supply. Comments
claim that in the past the water quality has deteriorated, causing water to
turn ‘milky’ due to a problem of ‘pump cavitation’ and a concern that
the proposed project will decrease surface water retention and infiltra-
tion. Runoff impacts and impacts to drainage facilities are concerns re-
quested to be addressed in the EIR.
¤ Land Use and Planning. Some comments request a comprehensive ex-
planation of density including secondary units. Some comments request
clarification if buildings and/or parcels are proposed within open space
and if building setbacks are being counted towards required open space.
The increase of new residents in the neighborhood is a concern. Some
commentors are concerned that the current residents’ utilities will be
burdened by the future residents.
¤ Noise. There is concern about increased noise pollution due to long-
term construction and the increased density of homes.
¤ Public Services and Recreation. Some comments expressed a concern
that the project will lead to overcrowding at Glenshire Elementary, a de-
crease in emergency service/fire response time, a reduction in recreation-
al opportunities, and impacts to Glenshire-Devonshire Home Owner’s
Association amenities. There is concern that the project will potentially
destroy open space. The community is also concerned with an analysis
of how emergency services can adequately respond to catastrophes (such
as large fires) with only two points of egress from the greater Glenshire
area.
¤ Traffic and Transportation. Concerns were voiced over existing inter-
section safety and roadway capacity as a result of new vehicle trips to and
from the site. There is concern that increased traffic flows will lead to
decreased property values along those routes and will result in roadway
hazards in winter conditions and risk pedestrian and bicycle safety from
increased traffic are a concern. Commenters requested using data from
when school is in session versus the summer PM peak standard currently
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
REPORT SUMMARY
2-7
used. Members of the public have expressed concern with the difficulties
in entry and exit at the Martis Peak Road/Glenshire Drive intersection.
There is a safety concern for children coming home from Glenshire
School. New sidewalks, bike paths/lanes, and the widening of roads in
the Glenshire Area are requested to alleviate the danger of additional traf-
fic. There are concerns that child safety is compromised due to expected
increased traffic in the neighborhood.
¤ Property Value/Economics/Quality of Life. While not a topic evalu-
ated under CEQA, some commentors expressed concern with the feasi-
bility of the project. The fiscal impacts on the schools and public services
are of large concern (supply of more buses, increased water and electricity
costs, etc.). Some commentors expect a financial impact on elementary
school capacity due to future construction costs. There are concerns
about decreased property values and ghost development. Another con-
cern is that the project may lead to an increase in second-home owners
which could further reduce year-round homeowners’ values in the local
market within the current economy. There is fear that high density will
affect the quality of life in Glenshire.
C. Alternatives to the Project
This Draft EIR analyzes alternatives to the proposed project that are designed
to reduce the significant environmental impacts of the project and feasibly
attain some of the project objectives. The following alternatives were ana-
lyzed in detail.
¤ Alternative A: No Project. This alternative is required under CEQA,
and describes the effects of taking no action or not receiving project ap-
proval. This alternative provides a general discussion of what would rea-
sonably be expected to occur on the project site if the proposed project is
not approved. This alternative introduces a “no build” concept despite
the fact that the Town has zoned the project site for residential develop-
ment.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
REPORT SUMMARY
2-8
¤ Alternative B: Edinburgh Drive Open Access (185 Lots). This alter-
native is the same as the proposed project, except that unrestricted access
to the site would be provided via Edinburgh Drive to the west of the site,
in addition to the Martis Peak Road access point. Under this alternative
the project density and the site plan would be the same as the proposed
project.
¤ Alternative C: No Open Space Crossing (185 Lots). This alternative
would result in the same size and number of residential lots as the pro-
posed project. However, under Alternative C, the proposed vehicular
roadway that spans the portion of the open space area would be gated
and restricted to use by emergency vehicles only. Subsequently, the ac-
cess point that connects to Martis Peak Road to the north of the project
site and the access point that connects to Edinburgh Drive to the west of
the project site would both be restricted (meaning there would be no
open through connection from Edinburgh Drive to Martis Peak Road).
Similar to the proposed project, the roadway network under Alternative
C would include four bridges that would be located outside of the 100-
year floodplain similar to the proposed project.
¤ Alternative D: Medium Density Cluster (185 Lots). This alternative
would reduce the lot size for each of the 185 proposed residential lots,
which would decrease the overall development footprint and increase the
open space area from that of the proposed project. Under Alternative D,
the residential lots would be organized consistent with the Medium Den-
sity Residential Cluster standards outlined in Table LU-7, Cluster Devel-
opment Types and Applicable Land Use Designations, in the Land Use
Element of the Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan. As such, the residen-
tial lots would cover approximately 54 acres (approximately 3 to 4 dwell-
ing units/acre) and public open space areas would cover approximately
230 acres, an increase of 54 acres of open space from that of the proposed
project.
¤ Alternative E: Reduced Density (88 Lots). This alternative describes a
reduced density development project design in which there would be a 53
percent reduction in the number of residential lots from the proposed
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
REPORT SUMMARY
2-9
185 lots to approximately 88 lots. Under this alternative, the site plan
would essentially be the same as the proposed project; however, the lot
sizes would be greater than the proposed project. The development
footprint would not be reduced from that of the proposed project. Un-
der this alternative, the private open space between the residential units
would be greater than that of the proposed project due to the larger lot
sizes and reduced density. Overall, the project density would also be less
than that of the proposed project.
Please see Chapter 5, Alternatives to the Proposed Project, of this Draft EIR,
for more information on these alternatives and on alternatives that were con-
sidered but not carried forward for detailed analysis. Alternatives B through
E are shown in Figures 5-1, 5-6, 5-7, and 5-8.
D. Summary of Impacts and Mitigation
Under CEQA, a significant impact on the environment is defined as a sub-
stantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical con-
ditions within the area affected by the project, including land, air, water, min-
erals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic and aesthetic signifi-
cance.
The proposed project has the potential to generate significant environmental
impacts in a number of areas. As shown in Table 2-1, the significant impacts
would be reduced to a less-than-significant level if the mitigation measures
recommended in this report were implemented.
CEQA allows environmental issues for which there is no likelihood of a sig-
nificant impact to be “scoped out” during the EIR scoping process, and not
analyzed further in the EIR. The project would have no impact on mineral
resources due to its existing site conditions and surrounding uses. This issue
has therefore not been analyzed further in this Draft EIR.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
REPORT SUMMARY
2-10
Table 2-1 presents a summary of impacts and mitigation measures identified
in this report. It is organized to correspond with the environmental issues
discussed in Chapter 4.
The table is arranged in four columns: 1) environmental impacts, 2) signifi-
cance prior to mitigation, 3) mitigation measures, and 4) significance after
mitigation. A series of mitigation measures is noted where more than one
measure may be required to achieve a less-than-significant impact. For a
complete description of potential impacts and suggested mitigation measures,
please refer to the specific discussions in Chapter 4.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
C ANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
REPORT SUMMARY
LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact
2-11
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significant Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
AESTHETICS
Project and cumulative impacts related to aesthetics would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.
AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Project and cumulative impacts related to agriculture and forest resources would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.
AIR QUALITY
AIR-1: Implementation of the proposed project
would conflict with the goals and policies of the
Town of Truckee’s Particulate Matter AQMP.
S AIR-1: Each residence shall be equipped with a non-wood burning source of
heat. Prior to issuance of any temporary or final certificates of occupancy or
prior to recordation of the final map, the applicant shall pay an air quality miti-
gation fee to the Air Quality Mitigation Fund to offset PM10 emissions from
solid fuel burning appliances. With payment of offset fee, any solid fuel burn-
ing appliances shall be EPA Phase II Certified and limited to one wood-burning
appliance per residence. The amount of the fee shall be established by the
Town Council resolution and in effect at the time of the building permit issu-
ance or final map recordation. The fees collected will be used to reduce particu-
late matter emissions from existing sources within the Truckee Air Basin in-
cluding improvements to street sanding and sweeping operations to reduce re-
entrained road dust emissions.
LTS
AIR-2: The effects of construction activities
would be increased dustfall and locally elevated
levels of PM10 downwind of construction activity.
Construction dust would be generated at levels
that would create an annoyance to nearby proper-
ties.
S AIR-2: The project applicant shall submit a construction plan for the project
which includes the following conditions:
¤ Open burning of vegetative material shall be prohibited. Among suitable
alternatives are chipping, mulching, or conversion to biomass fuel.
¤ The applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that adequate dust control
measures are implemented in a timely manner during all phases of project
development and construction.
LTS
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
REPORT SUMMARY
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES (CONTINUED)
LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact
2-12
Significant Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
AIR-2 continued ¤ Temporary traffic control shall be provided during all phases of construc-
tion to improve traffic flow as deemed appropriate by local transportation
agencies.
¤ Construction activities shall be scheduled to direct traffic flow to off-peak
hours as much as practicable.
¤ All material excavated, stockpiled, or graded shall be sufficiently watered,
treated, or covered to prevent fugitive dust from leaving the property
boundaries and causing a public nuisance or violation of ambient air stand-
ards during the dry season. Watering shall occur at least twice daily, with
complete site coverage during the dry season.
¤ The project sponsor shall pave all access points or aprons onto Town streets
prior to construction of Phase 1. The aprons shall be flushed and swept a
minimum of once per day.
¤ All areas with vehicle traffic shall be watered or have dust palliative applied
as necessary for regular stabilization of dust emissions.
¤ All on-site vehicle traffic shall be limited to a speed of 15 miles per hour
(mph) on unpaved roads.
¤ All inactive portions of the development site (previously graded areas which
remain inactive for 96 hours) shall be covered, seeded, or watered until a
suitable cover is established. Alternatively, the applicant may apply Town-
approved non-toxic soil stabilizers (according to manufacturer’s specifica-
tions) to all inactive construction areas in accordance with the local grading
ordinance.
¤ All material transported off-site shall be either sufficiently watered or secure-
ly covered to prevent public nuisance, and there must be a minimum of six
inches of freeboard in the bed of the transport vehicle.
¤ Wheel washers shall be installed where project vehicles and/or equipment
enter and/or exit onto paved streets from unpaved roads. Vehicles and/or
equipment shall be washed prior to each trip if necessary.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
REPORT SUMMARY
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES (CONTINUED)
LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact
2-13
Significant Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
AIR-2 continued ¤ Grid power shall be used (as opposed to diesel generators) for job site power
needs where feasible during construction.
¤ All self-propelled off-road diesel-powered equipment and vehicles greater
than 25 horsepower shall be equipped with an engine meeting at least Tier 2
emission standards.
¤ Prior to final occupancy, the applicant shall re-establish ground cover on the
site through seeding and watering in accordance with Town of Truckee re-
quirements.
AIR-3: Regional operation emissions would fall
within NSAQMD’s Level B threshold. Implemen-
tation Mitigation AIR-1 and the following mitiga-
tion measure would bring the operation of the
proposed project into compliance with the re-
quirements of the NSAQMD.
S AIR-3: Residential open burning shall be prohibited within the project. LTS
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
BIO-1: Removal of Jeffrey pine and sagebrush
habitat could potentially impact Sierra Nevada red
foxes if suitable den sites occur on the project site.
S BIO-1: Prior to the start of construction for each phase of development, a qual-
ified biologist selected by the Town of Truckee shall survey the project site to
determine if any burrows or other den sites suitable for use by Sierra Nevada
red fox are present. The selected surveyor shall coordinate with CDFG to de-
termine an acceptable survey methodology. If no evidence of this species is
found during field surveys, no further measures are required.
If an active Sierra Nevada red fox den is identified on the project site, CDFG
shall be contacted to determine how to proceed. It may be possible to proceed
with construction with implementation of appropriate avoidance and minimi-
zation measures (e.g. no-disturbance buffers, seasonal work windows) to pre-
vent incidental take of Sierra Nevada red fox. If incidental take cannot be pre-
vented, it may be necessary to obtain an incidental take permit from CDFG,
pursuant to Section 2081 of CESA, before construction may proceed.
LTS
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
REPORT SUMMARY
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES (CONTINUED)
LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact
2-14
Significant Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
BIO-2: Removal of Jeffrey pine and sagebrush
habitat could potentially disturb nesting birds,
including yellow warblers, if this species in nesting
on the project site.
S BIO-2: The following shall be implemented to mitigate potential impacts to
nesting yellow warblers. These measures shall apply to activities associated
with construction of infrastructure (e.g., roads, utilities) and also to future home
construction.
¤ All trees, shrubs, and other vegetation that is to be removed within the pro-
posed work area shall be removed during the non-nesting season, between
September 16 and February 28.
¤ If vegetation removal is not possible during the non-nesting season, a quali-
fied biologist selected by the Town of Truckee shall survey the proposed
work area and lands within a 500-foot radius (this area may be decreased due
to property access constraints) for nesting birds. The nesting survey shall be
conducted within 14 days prior to the start of construction.
¤ If no active nests are discovered, work can proceed.
¤ If an active nest is discovered, the project proponent shall implement one of
the following two approaches:
• A no-disturbance buffer shall be established around the active nest(s) us-
ing orange construction fencing (or equivalent). For raptors, the buffer
shall be established at a 500-foot radius; for non-raptors, the buffer shall
be established at a 100-foot radius. The fencing marking the buffer shall
be maintained in place until construction is complete, the young have
fledged, or the nest fails (the latter two shall be determined by a quali-
fied biologist); or
• A qualified biologist selected by the Town of Truckee shall evaluate the
potential for the proposed project to disturb nesting activities. The
evaluation criteria shall include, but are not limited to, the loca-
tion/orientation of the nest in the nest tree, the distance of the nest
from the proposed work area, and line of sight between the nest and the
proposed work area. CDFG shall be contacted to review the evaluation
and determine if the project can proceed without adversely affecting
LTS
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
REPORT SUMMARY
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES (CONTINUED)
LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact
2-15
Significant Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
BIO-2 continued nesting activities. If work is allowed to proceed, at a minimum, a quali-
fied biologist shall be on-site during the start of construction activities
during the nesting season to monitor nesting activity. The monitor
shall have the authority to stop work if it is determined the project is
adversely affecting nesting activities.
The above measures shall be repeated, as necessary, in accordance with the phas-
ing of project construction.
BIO-3: Installation of the wood piles for the pe-
destrian trail footbridges would impact wetlands
and non-wetland waters present on the project site.
S BIO-3: The following shall be implemented to mitigate potential impacts to
wetlands and non-wetland waters.
¤ Wetlands and non-wetland waters permanently impacted during construc-
tion shall be mitigated by one of the following methods or by using a com-
bination of the methods.
• Preservation, creation, and/or restoration of the impacted resources at a
minimum ratio of 2:1 (creation could potentially be implemented at a
1:1 ratio if completed and functional prior to the start of construction).
• Purchase of credits at an approved mitigation bank at a minimum 1:1
mitigation ratio.
• Payment of in-lieu fees per the current ACOE, Sacramento District in-
lieu fee schedule.
¤ All mitigation lands shall be protected in perpetuity through recordation of
a conservation easement or equivalent method.
¤ Prior to issuance of a grading permit or other authorization to proceed with
project construction, the project proponent shall obtain any regulatory
permits that are required from the Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Wa-
ter Quality Control Board, and/or California Department of Fish and
Game.
¤ The project proponent shall obtain a Minor Use Permit pursuant to Section
18.46.040.C of the Town of Truckee Development Code.
LTS
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
REPORT SUMMARY
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES (CONTINUED)
LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact
2-16
Significant Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
BIO-4: Removal of Jeffrey pine habitat and snags
could potentially disturb roosting bats if active
roosts are present on the project site.
S BIO-4: The following shall be implemented to mitigate potential impacts to
roosting bats. All snags and potential roost trees (i.e. 20 inches in diameter at
breast height (dbh) or greater) within the project impact area shall be removed
between September 1 and October 14, or between February 16 and April 14.
Removal of trees during these periods would avoid impacts to any bats occur-
ring on the project site during the normal breeding season (April 15 to August
30) and winter torpor (October 15 to February 15). Removal shall occur as
follows:
¤ At least two days prior to removal of snags and potential roost trees, con-
struction activities shall commence in the vicinity of the potential roost(s) to
expose bats potentially using the roosts to the sounds and vibrations of
equipment with the intention of causing the bats to leave the roost, thus
avoiding potential injury when the roost is removed.
¤ Equipment and vehicles shall not be operated under potential roost trees
that would not be removed to prevent exhaust fumes from filling roost cavi-
ties.
Alternatively, all potential roost trees within the project impact area shall be
surveyed by a qualified biologist to determine if any trees can be excluded as
suitable bat roosts due to the lack of suitable structural characteristics. If
any trees can be excluded as bat roosts, removal of these trees would not be
subject to the seasonal restrictions described above.
The above measures shall be repeated, as necessary, in accordance with the phas-
ing of project construction.
LTS
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
REPORT SUMMARY
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES (CONTINUED)
LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact
2-17
Significant Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
CULTURAL RESOURCES
CULT-1: Increased use of the project site and pro-
ject ground-disturbing activities could have signifi-
cant impacts on prehistoric archaeological deposits
that qualify as “historical resources” under CEQA.
S CULT-1a: All surface remains from prehistoric sites P-29-2838/CA-NEV-1760
and P-29-2839/CA-NEV-1761 shall be collected, analyzed, and reported upon,
leaving potential subsurface archaeological deposits intact and undisturbed.
Additional study at both sites shall be conducted, including the following activi-
ties:
¤ Field artifact technical analysis prior to project ground-disturbing activities;
¤ 100 percent collection of all surface artifacts;
¤ Submittal of a small representative sample of collected artifacts for basalt
sourcing analysis; and
¤ Completion of a catalog of items collected and preparation of a brief report
presenting findings of the lithics analysis.
The final report and catalog shall be submitted to the NCIC; artifacts collected
from these sites shall be curated in an appropriate facility to allow for future
research and public interpretation of the collection.
Prehistoric sites P-29-2838/CA-NEV-1760 and P-29-2839/CA-NEV-1761 shall
remain within protected open-space areas to avoid impacts from ground-
disturbing activities. During project construction, a protective buffer shall be
maintained by installing temporary fencing around each site; this activity shall
be directed by a professional archaeologist. Fencing shall be removed after
project ground-disturbing activities cease.
The Town shall be responsible for ensuring that the stipulations of Mitigation
Measure CULT-1a are completed. The applicant shall be responsible for fund-
ing implementation of this mitigation measure.
LTS
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
REPORT SUMMARY
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES (CONTINUED)
LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact
2-18
Significant Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
CULT-1 continued CULT-1b: In the event that archaeological materials are discovered during pro-
ject activities, the applicant shall inform its contractor(s) of the archaeological
sensitivity of the project site by including the following italicized measures in
contract documents. The Town shall verify that the following language is in-
cluded in the appropriate contract documents:
“If prehistoric or historical archaeological deposits are discovered during project ac-
tivities, all work within 25 feet of the discovery shall be redirected and a qualified
archaeologist contacted to assess the situation, consult with agencies as appropriate,
and make recommendations regarding the treatment of the discovery. Project per-
sonnel shall not collect or move any archaeological materials or human remains
and associated materials. Archaeological resources can include flaked-stone tools
(e.g. projectile points, knives, choppers) or obsidian, chert, basalt, or quartzite
toolmaking debris; bone tools; culturally darkened soil (i.e. midden soil often con-
taining heat-affected rock, ash and charcoal, shellfish remains, faunal bones, and
cultural materials); and stone-milling equipment (e.g. mortars, pestles, handstones).
Prehistoric archaeological sites often contain human remains. Historical materials
can include wood, stone, concrete, or adobe footings, walls, and other structural
remains; debris-filled wells or privies; and deposits of wood, glass, ceramics, metal,
and other refuse.”
CULT-2: Pleistocene sediments underlie the pro-
ject site and have the potential to contain paleonto-
logical resources. Should project ground-
disturbing activities encounter such resources, a
substantial adverse change in their significance (e.g.
their disturbance or destruction) would constitute
a significant impact under CEQA.
S CULT-2: In the event that fossils are discovered during project activities, the
applicant shall inform its contractor(s) of the paleontological sensitivity of the
project site by including the following italicized language in contract docu-
ments. The Town shall verify that the following language is included in the
appropriate contract documents:
“The subsurface at the construction site may be sensitive for paleontological re-
sources. If paleontological resources are encountered during project subsurface con-
struction, all ground-disturbing activities within 25 feet shall be redirected and a
qualified paleontologist contacted to assess the situation, consult with agencies as
appropriate, and make recommendations for the treatment of the discovery.
LTS
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
REPORT SUMMARY
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES (CONTINUED)
LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact
2-19
Significant Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
CULT-2 continued Project personnel shall not collect or move any paleontological materials. Paleon-
tological resources include fossil plants and animals, and such trace fossil evidence
of past life as tracks. Ancient marine sediments may contain invertebrate fossils
such as snails, clam and oyster shells, sponges, and protozoa; and vertebrate fossils
such as fish, whale, and sea lion bones. Vertebrate land mammals may include
bones of mammoth, camel, saber tooth cat, horse, and bison. Paleontological re-
sources also include plant imprints, petrified wood, and animal tracks.”
GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY
GEO-1: The concealed fault trace identified on
the project site could be unstable and could expose
people or structures to potential substantial ad-
verse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving rupture of a known earthquake
fault and potentially result in on- or off-site land-
slide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or
collapse.
S GEO-1: Prior to approval of the final map, the project applicant shall obtain a
Town-approved qualified geologist to perform trenching in the vicinity of the
concealed fault trace on the project site to determine whether an active or po-
tentially active fault is present.
LTS
GEO-2: The five areas adjacent to on-site drainag-
es noted as areas of potential landslides on Figure
4.6-2 of the Draft EIR could expose people or
structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involv-
ing a landslide.
S GEO-2: Existing landslides shall be repaired to prevent further landslides dur-
ing the construction phase corresponding to the landslide location.
LTS
GEO-3: During grading and earthwork on the
project site soil erosion and the loss of topsoil may
occur.
S GEO-3: The project applicant shall be responsible for preparing a site-specific
erosion control and grading plan to be implemented during all phases of con-
struction and subject to review and approval by the Town of Truckee Public
Works Department and the Nevada County Public Works Department. The
site-specific erosion control and grading plans shall utilize Best Management
Practices (BMPs) in accordance with the California Stormwater Quality Associa-
tion Stormwater Best Management Practice Handbook to ensure that pre-project
LTS
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
REPORT SUMMARY
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES (CONTINUED)
LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact
2-20
Significant Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
GEO-3 continued flows are equal to or less than post-project flows. The BMPs shall include one
or more of the following:
1. Directing some of the flow to sheet discharge onto grassy areas or open
space.
2. The placement of water quality interceptor devices.
3. Use of rock-lined ditches below pipe outlets.
4. Vegetated grass lined swales.
5. Minimizing drainage concentration from impervious surfaces.
6. Construction management techniques.
7. Erosion protection at culvert outfall locations.
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Project and cumulative impacts related to GHG emissions would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are warranted.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
HAZ-1: The introduction of residential homes in
an area of dense vegetation and forested land could
expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires.
S HAZ-1a: The project applicant shall submit a fire safety and fuel modification
plan that provides for (1) adequate safety for emergency fire equipment and
evacuating residents and visitors, (2) a point of attack or defense from a wild-
fire, and (3) strategic siting of fuel breaks, fire breaks, and greenbelts. Fuel mod-
ification shall include (1) underbrush, dead and dying branches from trees shall
be removed up to a minimum of 100 feet from the perimeter of all structures,
(2) all flammable vegetation within 10 feet from the edge of road and driveway
pavement shall be removed, and (3) all flammable vegetation within 30 feet of
all structures shall be removed. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the
Truckee Fire Protection District prior to the issuance of building permits.
LTS
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
REPORT SUMMARY
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES (CONTINUED)
LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact
2-21
Significant Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
HAZ-1 continued HAZ-1b: The project applicant shall ensure that fire flow be provided to each
hydrant at a rate of no less than 1,000 gallons per minute for a duration of two
minutes in residential areas, with the provision that any residential dwelling
exceeding 3,600 square feet shall be required to have no less than a fire flow rate
of 1,500 gallons per minute.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
HYDRO-1: The proposed project would involve
grading, excavation, and potential cut and fill activ-
ity. Ground disturbance associated with construc-
tion activities has the potential to cause erosion of
exposed surfaces during rainfall events and snow-
melt. Runoff has the potential to cause sedimenta-
tion of on-site and off-site watercourses.
S HYDRO-1a: Prior to approval of improvement plans, a grading plan shall be
prepared for the project site that contains the following provisions:
¤ Identify areas where topsoil is to be salvaged prior to grading for later reuse
on-site.
¤ Identify and protect areas not planned to be disturbed to the greatest extent
practicable using temporary fencing or other methods.
¤ Limit cuts and fills and balance cut and fill on-site.
¤ Limit grading to the smallest practical area of land.
¤ Limit exposure of disturbed soils to the shortest practical amount of time.
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit re-
quires that disturbed soils are temporarily stabilized within 14 days of dis-
turbance.
¤ Establish a winterization plan such that all disturbed soil areas are stabilized
by October 15th of each construction year (per NPDES requirements).
¤ Permanently stabilize graded/disturbed areas through soil loosening, appli-
cation of salvaged topsoil, establishment of native vegetation and application
of native mulch material. The State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB), “Sediment Source Control Handbook” provides field-tested
guidelines for revegetating and permanently stabilizing disturbed soil areas
in the Tahoe-Truckee area.
LTS
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
REPORT SUMMARY
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES (CONTINUED)
LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact
2-22
Significant Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
HYDRO-1 continued ¤ Create grading contours that blend with the natural contours on-site or with
contours on property immediately adjacent to the area of development.
¤ Locate and design roadways, parking areas, trails, and paths to blend in with
the natural terrain.
¤ Limit development on steep slopes in order to minimize erosion.
HYDRO-1b: Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be applied during con-
struction to minimize erosion and sedimentation. A stormwater pollution pre-
vention plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared and submitted prior to ground disturb-
ing activities that specifies what specific measures will be implemented to pro-
tect water quality and minimize erosion during construction. BMPs selected
shall be in accordance with the California Stormwater Quality Association
“Stormwater Best Management Practice Handbook” and the Lahontan Regional
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) “Project Guidelines for Erosion Con-
trol.” These guidelines include the following temporary construction BMPs:
¤ Surplus or waste materials shall not be placed in drainage ways or within the
100-year flood plain of surface waters.
¤ All loose piles of soil, silt, clay, sand, debris, or earthen materials shall be
protected in a reasonable manner to prevent discharge of pollutants to wa-
ters of the State. Material stockpiles should be placed on the upgradient side
of excavation whenever possible. Stockpiles should be covered prior to
forecasted rain events and sediment barriers should be installed around
stockpiles at all times.
¤ Dewatering shall be done in a manner so as to prevent the discharge of pol-
lutants, including earthen materials, from the site. The first option is to dis-
charge dewatering waste to land. A separate permit may be required if, due
to site constraints, dewatering waste must be discharged to surface waters.
Contact the Regional Board for information on discharging to surface wa-
ters.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
REPORT SUMMARY
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES (CONTINUED)
LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact
2-23
Significant Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
HYDRO-1 continued ¤ All disturbed areas shall be temporarily or permanently stabilized by Octo-
ber 15 of each year.
¤ Any soil-disturbing work that is allowed to be performed (which requires a
variance) between October 15 and May 1 of each year shall be conducted in
such a manner that the project can be winterized within 48 hours. Winter-
ized means implementing erosion and/or sediment controls that would pre-
vent the discharge of earthen materials from the site and the controls would
remain effective throughout the rainy/snow season without requiring
maintenance. In general, this requires stabilizing bare disturbed soils with
mulch, erosion protection blankets, or other suitable materials, and in-
stalling perimeter sediment controls such as fiber logs or other similar mate-
rials that would remain effective during significant rain and snow events.
¤ After completion of a construction project, all surplus or waste earthen ma-
terial shall be removed from the site and deposited at a legal point of dispos-
al.
¤ All non-construction areas (areas outside of the construction zone that
would remain undisturbed) shall be protected by fencing or other means to
prevent necessary encroachment outside the active construction zone.
¤ During construction, temporary erosion control measures (e.g. impermeable
dikes, silt fences, wattles, etc.) shall be used as necessary to prevent discharge
of earthen materials from the site during periods of precipitation or runoff.
¤ Control of run-on water from off-site areas shall be managed (protected, di-
verted, treated, etc.) to prevent such water from encountering pollutants be-
fore it is discharged from the site.
¤ Where construction activities involve the crossing and/or alteration of a
stream channel, such activities require a prior written agreement with the
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and shall be timed when-
ever possible to occur during the period in which stream flow is expected to
be lowest for the year. Other control measures may be necessary to prevent
adverse effects from work in or near surface waters.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
REPORT SUMMARY
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES (CONTINUED)
LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact
2-24
Significant Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
HYDRO-1 continued ¤ Revegetated areas shall be regularly and continually maintained in order to
assure adequate vegetation growth and root development, mulch surface
cover, and absence of any signs of erosion (rills, gullies, deposition). Revege-
tated areas shall be routinely inspected and maintained as necessary to ensure
continued erosion control effectiveness. The Sediment Source Control
Handbook, a Sierra Business Council publication in collaboration with the
Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board, provides field-tested
guidelines for revegetating and permanently stabilizing disturbed soil areas
in the Tahoe-Truckee area.
HYDRO-1c: Additional requirements for Truckee River hydrologic area:
¤ Except in the event of emergencies, land disturbance associated with project
construction is prohibited between October 15th and May 1st of the follow-
ing year. Exemptions may be granted by the Lahontan Executive Officer on
a case-by-case basis.
¤ The project’s SWPPP and erosion control plan shall specify what specific
measures will be implemented to protect water quality and minimize ero-
sion during construction per NPDES permit requirements and Town stand-
ards. The plan shall address storm drainage during construction and propose
site-specific BMPs to prevent erosion and water quality degradation. All
drainage and infiltration facilities shall be constructed to Town specifica-
tions. The plan shall also specify restoration measures for graded areas in-
cluding but not limited to landscaping, revegetation, or other soil stabiliza-
tion methods shown to be effective in the Truckee-Tahoe area.
¤ Low Impact Development (LID) techniques should be utilized during and
after construction. On-site infiltration should be utilized wherever possible
to minimize runoff. Such infiltration features may include wet ponds, de-
tention ponds, infiltration swales, and/or rain gardens between the road sur-
faces and other paved areas. Roof downspouts should be directed towards
on-site infiltration areas away from the building foundations.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
REPORT SUMMARY
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES (CONTINUED)
LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact
2-25
Significant Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
HYDRO-1 continued ¤ Earthen drainage facilities should be protected immediately following con-
struction using rock riprap, erosion control fabric or other energy dissipa-
tion measures to prevent erosion of the soil surface. In addition, cut slopes
and drainage ways should be protected from direct exposure to water runoff
immediately following grading activities.
¤ Cut and fill embankment slopes shall be protected from sheet, rill, and gully
erosion and shall not exceed 2:1, horizontal to vertical. Run-on areas should
be identified and managed as necessary to prevent concentrated flow from
eroding cut and fill slopes.
HYDRO-2: Following project construction, crea-
tion of impervious surfaces (roads, houses) and
slight changes of local topography has the potential
to alter surface runoff rates and drainage patterns
from the site and increase surface runoff rates, peak
flows, and sediment transport downstream. Urban
runoff from roadways, driveways, and parking lots
may carry metals and petroleum-based contami-
nants to waterways.
S HYDRO-2a: Prior to approval of improvement plans, a grading plan shall be
prepared for the project site that contains the following provisions:
¤ Limit grading to the smallest practical area of land.
¤ Locate and design roadways, parking areas, trails, and paths to blend in with
the natural terrain.
¤ Limit development on steep slopes in order to minimize erosion.
¤ Create grading contours that blend with the natural contours on-site or with
contours on property immediately adjacent to the area of development.
¤ Permanently stabilize graded/disturbed areas through soil loosening, appli-
cation of salvaged topsoil, establishment of native vegetation and application
of native mulch material. The Water Board’s “Sediment Source Control
Handbook” provides field-tested guidelines for revegetating and permanent-
ly stabilizing disturbed soil areas in the Tahoe-Truckee area.
LTS
HYDRO-2b: The following permanent BMPs shall be applied during construc-
tion to minimize alteration of surface runoff rates and prevent associated water
quality and flooding impacts:
¤ Low Impact Development (LID) techniques shall be utilized during and after
construction. On-site infiltration should be utilized wherever possible to
minimize runoff. Such infiltration features may include wet ponds, deten-
tion ponds, infiltration swales, and/or rain gardens between the road
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
REPORT SUMMARY
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES (CONTINUED)
LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact
2-26
Significant Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
HYDRO-2 continued surfaces and other paved areas. Roof downspouts should be directed to-
wards on-site infiltration areas away from the building foundations. Other
control measures may be considered if site constraints are such that con-
struction of infiltration features is not feasible. Additional specific design
specifications are required by Lahontan RWQCB for the Truckee River
Hydrologic Area (see specific requirements below).
¤ Where possible, existing drainage patterns should not be significantly modi-
fied.
¤ Drainage swales should be stabilized with rock, riprap, erosion control fab-
ric, and/or vegetation as appropriate to prevent erosion and scouring.
¤ Revegetated areas should be regularly and continually maintained in order to
assure adequate vegetation growth and root development, mulch surface
cover, and absence of any signs of erosion (rills, gullies, deposition). Revege-
tated areas shall be routinely inspected and maintained as necessary to ensure
continued erosion control effectiveness. The Water Board’s “Sediment
Source Control Handbook” provides field-tested guidelines for revegetating
and permanently stabilizing disturbed soil areas in the Tahoe-Truckee area.
HYDRO-2c: Additional requirements for Truckee River hydrologic area:
¤ Runoff from impervious surfaces shall be treated or contained on-site. For
purposes of this requirement, the volume of water to be contained or treated
is the 20-year, 1-hour storm, which is equal to 0.7 inches of rain.
¤ Design, construction, and maintenance techniques should ensure develop-
ment near a creek would not cause or worsen natural hazards (such as ero-
sion, sedimentation, flooding, or pollution) and would include appropriate
erosion and sediment control practices such as: (1) turbidity screens and oth-
er management practices, which shall be used as necessary to minimize silta-
tion, sedimentation, and erosion, and shall be left in place until disturbed ar-
eas are stabilized with permanent vegetation that would prevent the
transport of sediment off-site; and (2) temporary vegetation and/or mulch
cover sufficient to stabilize disturbed areas.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
REPORT SUMMARY
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES (CONTINUED)
LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact
2-27
Significant Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
HYDRO-2 continued ¤ Post-project stormwater flows shall equal pre-project stormwater flows for
the design year event.
¤ Prior to initiation of construction, the project proponent shall demonstrate
that the post-development design storm hydrograph leaving the project is
not changed from pre-project conditions such that downstream drainage
structures (culverts, bridges, etc.) remain adequate post-development. To
this end, soil infiltration rates, stormwater pond capacities and detention
times, and other suggested revisions from the 2007 technical review by Geo-
con shall be incorporated into the construction plans so that Lahontan
RWQCB and the Town can fully evaluate the feasibility of the proposed
drainage design.
LAND USE AND PLANNING
Project and cumulative impacts related to land use and planning would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.
NOISE
Project and cumulative impacts related to noise would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.
POPULATION AND HOUSING
Project and cumulative impacts related to population and housing would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are warranted.
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
Project and cumulative impacts related to public services and recreation would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are warranted.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
REPORT SUMMARY
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES (CONTINUED)
LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact
2-28
Significant Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
TRANS-1: The Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass
Road intersection exceeds the LOS thresholds dur-
ing the PM peak hour in 2011 without the pro-
posed project. Implementation of the proposed
project would exacerbate an existing deficiency at
this intersection, as it would result in increased
vehicular delays during the PM peak hour.
S TRANS 1: The project applicant shall construct a center turn lane on Donner
Pass Road to allow two-stage left-turn movements to be made from Glenshire
Drive. The turn lane shall be constructed during Phase 1 of project construc-
tion and prior to any Parcel or Final Map recordation. Project construction
shall not exceed a maximum of 102 single-family lots and eight affordable hous-
ing lots until the completion of the Donner Pass Road Extension is identified in
the CIP, fully funded, or scheduled for completion within three years of the
beginning of Phase 6, or any phase that exceeds 102 single-family lots and eight
affordable lots, of the proposed project.
The construction of the Donner Pass Road Extension is not currently identified
in the CIP, fully funded, and scheduled for completion within three years.
Therefore, the proposed development does not meet the criteria in the General
Plan Circulation Element for an allowable development.
LTS
TRANS-2: The segment of Martis Peak Road that
provides access to the project site is subject to the
Town’s thresholds and would have an ADT vol-
ume exceeding 2,000 vehicles, and it would func-
tion as a collector roadway. This roadway seg-
ment has a total pavement width ranging from 20
to 23 feet and does not meet the adopted standard
for impacts to local residential roadways and im-
pacts local roadways under 2011 conditions.
S TRANS 2: The project applicant shall widen the segment of Martis Peak Road
between Glenshire Drive and the project’s main entrance to provide 12-foot
travel lanes with 2-foot shoulders during Phase 1 of project construction.
LTS
TRANS-3: Based upon the AM and PM peak-
hour traffic volumes, an eastbound left-turn lane is
warranted along Glenshire Drive at its intersection
with Dorchester Drive (West), with or without the
project under 2011 and 2031 conditions.
S TRANS 3: Install an eastbound left-turn lane along Glenshire Drive at its inter-
section with Dorchester Drive (West) during construction Phase 1 of the pro-
posed project. The turn lane shall provide approximately 50 feet of storage
length.
LTS
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
REPORT SUMMARY
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES (CONTINUED)
LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact
2-29
Significant Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
TRANS-4: Construction trips added to Glenshire
Drive/Donner Pass Road or the eastbound left-
turn lane along Glenshire Drive at its intersection
with the western end of Dorchester Drive intersec-
tion would exacerbate these already deficient inter-
sections.
S TRANS-4: A Construction Traffic Management Plan shall be prepared and
approved by the Town’s Public Works Department prior to Phase 1 construc-
tion of the project.
LTS
TRANS-5: The existing pavement width on the
roadway segment on Glenshire Drive east of Mar-
tis Peak Road currently accommodates 11-foot
travel lanes with no shoulder in some locations and
both Nevada County and Town of Truckee road-
way design standards call for 12-foot lanes with
4-foot shoulders, and maximum grade of 8 percent.
The increase in traffic from the proposed project
would exacerbate this existing geometric deficien-
cy.
S TRANS-5: The project applicant shall fund a safety study as well as implemen-
tation of the recommended safety improvements along this roadway segment as
a result of the safety study. The scope and cost of the study should be reviewed
and approved by the Town prior to the study being conducted. Funding shall
be in place prior to the issuance of grading or building permits and safety im-
provements along Glenshire Drive east of Martis Peak Road should be imple-
mented as a part of Phase 1 construction.
LTS
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Project and cumulative impacts related to utilities and service systems would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are warranted.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
REPORT SUMMARY
2-30
3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-1
A. Project Location and Site Characteristics
As shown on Figure 3-1, the Canyon Springs Subdivision site (Assessor Parcel
Numbers 49-020-17 through -22) is located at the far eastern end of the Town
of Truckee (Town) in the Glenshire area, immediately east of the Glenshire,
Elkhorn Ridge, and Cambridge Estates residential subdivisions. The project
site is approximately 1 mile south of Interstate 80 and has direct access to In-
terstate 80 via the Hirschdale Road off-ramp to Glenshire Drive and then
Martis Peak Road. The project is comprised of 283.76 acres within the Town
limits and five acres within unincorporated Nevada County, herein collective-
ly referred to as the “project site.”
The Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan, shown on Figure 3-2, designates the
project site as RC/OS (Resource Conservation/Open Space) and RES (Resi-
dential) 0.5-1 du/acre (dwelling unit per acre or du/acre). The project site is
also within the Overlay Area 6 designation, which requires a planned devel-
opment that links access, open space areas and infrastructure between the
properties to be adopted prior to the approval of any tentative map. The
maximum allowable density based on the Town of Truckee’s current zoning
standards, shown on Figure 3-3, consists of:
¤ 213 lots on 213 acres in the RS-1.0 Zoning District (Single-Family Resi-
dential, density of 1 du/acre); 1 and
¤ Zero lots on 70.76 acres in the OS Zoning District (Open Space).
The additional 5 acres in unincorporated Nevada County is designated PD
(Planned Development) and IDR (Interim Development Reserve) in the Ne-
vada County General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, respectively. This narrow
strip of land running north/south connected to the northern edge of the
1 Town of Truckee Municipal Code, Title 18, Development Code, Chapter
18.03, Interpretation of Provisions, Section 18.03.020.C.1. Density is rounded down
to the nearest whole number; 283.76 total site acres less 70.76 OS acres equals 213 acres
zoned RS-1 allows for up to 213 lots.
Source: Nevada County GIS Dept., 2005 / CASIL, 2005 / Quad Knopf, 2007.
PROJECT LOCATION AND VICINITY MAP
FIGURE 3-1
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Downtown
SpecificPlan
Area
PC-3
D o r c h e ster
W
ay
Gle
n
shir
e
D
r
i
v
e
Glensh
i
r
e
D
r
AlderCreekRd
JoergerDr
Pros
s
e
r
D
a
m
R
d
Bro
c
k
w
a
y
R
d
Al
d
e
r
D
r
SkiSlopeWay
H
i
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
R
d
SilverfirDr
ThelineDr
P
a
l
i
s
a
d
e
s
D
r
N
o
r
t
h
w
o
o
d
sBlvd
DonnerPassRd
DonnerPassRd
TahoeDonner
PlanArea
PC-1
Gray'sCrossing
Specific
PlanArea
SSA-1
FIGURELU-1
GENERALPLANLANDUSEMAP
0120.5Mile
TOWNOFTRUCKEE
2025GENERALPLAN
§¨¦80
§¨¦80
§¨¦80
§¨¦80
267
267
89
89
Truckee
Ri
v
e
r
TruckeeRiver
Truckee-Tahoe
AirportDonnerLake
ProsserLake
NORTH
GeneralPlanLandUseDesignations
PublicHospital/Office
PlannedCommunity
SpecialStudyArea
ProposedSphereofInfluence
TruckeeTownLimits
PotentialFutureConnectorRoads
ResidentialClusterAverageDensity1du/10acres
ResidentialClusterAverageDensity1du/5acres
Residential0.5-1du/acre
Residential0.5du/acre
Residential1-2du/acre
Residential3-6du/acre
HighDensityResidential6-12du/acre
Commercial
Industrial
RailTransportationCorridor
Public
PlanArea
OpenSpaceRecreation
ResourceConservation/OpenSpace
B o ca R e s.
Downtown
SpecificPlan
Area
D o r c h e ster
W
ay
Gle
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
Glensh
i
r
e
D
r
AlderCreekRd
JoergerDr
Pros
s
e
r
D
a
m
R
d
Al
d
e
r
D
r
SkiSlopeWay
Hi
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
R
d
N
o
r
t
h
w
o
o
d
s Blvd
DonnerPassRd
Donner PassRd
TahoeDonner
PlanArea
Gray'sCrossing
Specific
PlanArea
FIGURELU-1
GENERALPLANLANDUSEMAP
TOWNOFTRUCKEE
2025GENERALPLAN
§¨¦80
80
§¨¦80
§¨¦80
267
89
T r u c k e e R i v e r
P r o s s er L a k e
GeneralPlanLandUseDesignations
PublicHospital/Office
PlannedCommunity
SpecialStudyArea
ProposedSphereofInfluence
PotentialFutureConnectorRoads
ResidentialClusterAverageDensity1du/10acres
ResidentialClusterAverageDensity1du/5acres
Residential0.5-1du/acre
Residential0.5du/acre
Residential1-2du/acre
Residential3-6du/acre
HighDensityResidential6-12du/acre
Commercial
Industrial
RailTransportationCorridor
Public
PlanArea
OpenSpaceRecreation
ResourceConservation/OpenSpace
B o ca R e s.
TruckeeTownLimits
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP
FIGURE 3-2
Source: Town of Truckee, 2025 General Plan.
- Note: Main entrance roadway off
Martis Peak Road is within unincorpo-
rated Nevada County and is designed
PD (Planned Development) in the
Nevada County General Plan.
Project Site Area
.250 .5 MilesNORTH
S
a
i
n
t
A
l
b
a
n
s
P
l
S
i
n
c
l
a
i
r
S-X
Courtena
y
L
n
Courtenay Ct
Samford C
t
Winchester Ct
C
h
e
l
s
e
a
P
l
Wellington
W
a
y
Canterbury Ln
Wellington Way
Oxford Cir
Ha
v
e
n
H
i
l
l
C
t
RS-X
OS
REC
Winds
o
r
W
ay
S
t
.
J
a
m
e
s
P
l
Sh
e
f
f
i
e
l
d
P
l
Sherw
ood Dr
Ba
l
f
l
o
u
r
Re
a
c
h
Re
a
c
h
Ch
i
c
w
i
c
k
So
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
RS-X
REC
RE
C
R
R
-
X
Heig
h
t
s
Hast
i
n
g
s
PF
B
e
c
k
e
t
t
P
l
Lanc
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
RS-X
RS-X
RS-X
RS-X
Edinburgh
Dr
B
e
l
f
o
r
d
P
l
RR-X
RECRECREC
REC
REC
RS-1.0
RS-1.0
Rolands Way
RR-X
PF
OS
RS-X RS-1.0
Sudsbury Cir
W o o d b ri d g e Ln
E
x
e
t
e
r
C
t
c
l
i
f
f
e
L
n
Saint Albans Pl
S
h
e
r
b
o
u
r
n
e
C
t
W
o
o
d
b
r
i
d
g
e
C
t
L
a
n
c
e
D
r
W
i
l
t
s
h
i
r
e
L
n
Chelmsford Cir
Cro
m
l
e
y
S
q
B
e
x
h
i
l
l
P
l
E
a
s
t
b
o
u
r
n
e
C
t
P
l
y
m
o
u
t
h
L
n
St
Wa
t
e
r
l
o
o
C
i
r
RR-X
REC
RR-0.67
RR-0.67
REC
e D
r
Kent Dr
Dorchester Dr
Donnington Ln
S
u
r
r
e
y
P
l
Glenshire Dr
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t Dr
La nce
D
r
R
e
g
e
n
c
y
C
i
r
21
5
0
'
19
5
0
'
13
0
0
'
11
0
0
'
1000'
75
0
'
70
0
'
550'350'
30
0
'
28
0
'
20
0
'
Drainages
Streets
T
Project Boundary
own Boundary
Sheet #12
0 1,600800 Feet
DateOrd. #
Zoning Revisions
jo
i
n
s
s
h
e
e
t
#
1
1
joins sheet #5
Bu
c
k
S
p
r
i
n
g
Unnam
e
d
D
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
S
a
i
n
t
A
l
b
a
n
s
P
l
S
i
n
c
l
a
i
r
S-X
Courtena
y
L
n
Courtenay Ct
Samford C
t
Winchester Ct
C
h
e
l
s
e
a
P
l
Wellington
W
a
y
Canterbury Ln
Wellington Way
Oxford Cir
Ha
v
e
n
H
i
l
l
C
t
RS-X
OS
REC
Winds
o
r
W
a
y
S
t
.
J
a
m
e
s
P
l
Sh
e
f
f
i
e
l
d
P
l
Sherw
o
o
d
D
r
Ba
l
f
l
o
u
r
Re
a
c
h
Re
a
c
h
Ch
i
c
w
i
c
k
So
m
e
r
s
e
t
D
r
RS-X
REC
RE
C
R
R
-
X
Heig
h
t
s
Hast
i
n
g
s
PF
B
e
c
k
e
t
t
P
l
Lanc
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
RS-X
RS-X
RS-X
RS-X
Edinburgh
Dr
B
e
l
f
o
r
d
P
l
RR-X
RECRECREC
REC
REC
RS-1.0
RS-1.0
Rolands Way
RR-X
PF
OS
RS-XRS-1.0
Sudsbury Cir
Woodbridge Ln
E
x
e
t
e
r
C
t
c
l
i
f
f
e
L
n
Saint Albans Pl
S
h
e
r
b
o
u
r
n
e
C
t
W
o
o
d
b
r
i
d
g
e
C
t
L
a
n
c
e
D
r
W
i
l
t
s
h
i
r
e
L
n
Chelmsford Cir
Cro
m
l
e
y
S
q
B
e
x
h
i
l
l
P
l
E
a
s
t
b
o
u
r
n
e
C
t
P
l
y
m
o
u
t
h
L
n
St
Wa
t
e
r
l
o
o
C
i
r
RR-X
REC
RR-0.67
RR-0.67
REC
e D
r
Kent Dr
Dorchester Dr
Donnington Ln
S
u
r
r
e
y
P
l
Glenshire Dr
S
o
m
e
r
s
e
t Dr
Lance
D
r
R
e
g
e
n
c
y
C
i
r
21
5
0
'
19
5
0
'
13
0
0
'
11
0
0
'
1000'
75
0
'
70
0
'
550'350'
30
0
'
28
0
'
20
0
'
Drainages
Streets
T
Project Boundary
own Boundary
Sheet #12
0 1,600800 Feet
DateOrd. #
Zoning Revisions
jo
i
n
s
s
h
e
e
t
#
1
1
joins sheet #5
Bu
c
k
S
p
r
i
n
g
Unnam
e
d
D
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
Note: Main entrance roadway off Martis Peak Road, not shown
on this map, is within unincorporated Nevada County
and is Zoned IDR (Interim Development Reserve) in the
Nevada County Zoning Ordinance.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
ZONING MAP
FIGURE 3-3
Source: Town of Truckee, Zoning Map, sheet 12.
OS (Open Space)
RS - 1.0 (Single Family Residential,
density 1 dwelling unit per acre)
RS - X (Residential Single Family, No Further Subdivision)
RR - X (Rural Residential, No Further Subdivision)
REC (Recreation)
PF (Public Facilities)
8000 1,600 FeetNORTH
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-5
Town limit boundary would include a mailbox cluster area and a new vehicu-
lar access road to serve the 283.76 acres within the Town of Truckee. No
residential lots are proposed on this land. Land Use is discussed in detail in
Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Draft EIR.
The project site corresponds to the western half of Section 3 of the Martis
Peak quadrangle, Township 17 North, Range 17 East of the Martis Peak, Cal-
ifornia United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute topographic
quadrangle.
The project site is a forested area with meadows and wetlands that trend
northwesterly through the central and southern portions of the site. The site
topography slopes gently downward to the northwest along two ridges.
Slopes are generally 1 to 10 percent, but with some isolated areas exceeding 30
percent. Elevations on the site range from approximately 5,920 feet above
mean sea level (MSL) in the northwest to 6,120 feet above MSL in the south-
east. According to the 2006 Nevada County Soil Survey, the soil units on the
site vary from coarse sand to clay, sandy loam to clay, and some very gravelly
subsoils with slopes up to 5 percent to gravelly sandy loam underlain by clay
loam and gravelly clay loam with slopes that range from 2 percent to 30 per-
cent. Geological resources are discussed in detail in Section 4.6, Geology,
Soils, and Seismicity, of this Draft EIR.
Juniper Creek, a tributary of the Truckee River, flows through the site from
east to west and serves as a wildlife corridor. In addition, the site supports
both intermittent and ephemeral drainages, seasonal wetlands and two blue-
line waterways. Dominant plant communities on the site include Jeffrey Pine
Forest and Sagebrush Scrub. Both common and special-status plant and wild-
life species and sensitive plant habitats are known to occur on the project site.
Plants found on site include, but are not limited to, Jeffery pine, White fir,
Drummond’s willow, Low sagebrush, Bitterbrush, Pilose paintbrush, Com-
mon yarrow, Rock cress, and Sulphur flower buckwheat. Various wildlife
species also inhabit the project site, including, but not limited to, Coyote,
Mule Deer, Raccoon, Northern flying squirrel, Northern Goshawk, Red-
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-6
tailed hawk, Northern Flicker, and Mountain Chickadee. Additionally, two
pebble meadow sites have been identified. Biological Resources and Hydrol-
ogy and Water Quality are discussed in detail in Section 4.4, Biological Re-
sources, and Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Draft EIR,
respectively. The project site is approximately 1.6 miles east of Truckee's
town center along the Truckee River Valley. Open views of the site are lim-
ited, as the gently rolling terrain is largely covered with mixed conifers and
woodland vegetation. Large trees and hills obstruct views from the site to-
ward the north, east, and south; homes in the Glenshire subdivision 0.5 miles
to the west are generally not visible from the site. Additionally, there is lim-
ited visibility of the project site from Glenshire Drive, the main access road
leading to the Glenshire neighborhood, and views are obstructed from Martis
Peak Drive, which runs to the northeast of the site. Views of the project site
and surrounding area are discussed in detail in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, of this
Draft EIR.
B. Project Site History
The project site is generally undeveloped. The site was logged some years ago
and many if not most of the larger trees were removed. A 7-acre area on the
western edge of the project site was the location of a previous fire. The pro-
ject site has two identified cultural resource sites. Forestry and Cultural Re-
sources are discussed in detail in Section 4.2, Agriculture and Forestry Re-
sources, and Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, of this Draft EIR, respectively.
A well-developed network of unpaved roads and trails is distributed through-
out the site. The project site is accessed by surrounding subdivision residents
through connecting trails and experiences year-round unauthorized use. In
the winter, the site is used by cross-country and backcountry skiers, snow-
shoers, and snowmobile users. In other seasons the project site is used by
hikers, mountain bikers, equestrians, and off-road vehicle users. The only
formal development on the project site is the Liberty Energy – California
Pacific Electric Company’s overhead high-power transmission line and asso-
ciated access road that spans the project site in a southwest-northeast orienta-
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-7
tion for approximately 2,300 feet. In addition, a well exists near the central
portion of the project site on Assessor Parcel Number 49-020-20. Refer to
Figure 3-4. Recreation and Utilities are discussed in detail in Section 4.13,
Public Services and Recreation, and Section 4.15, Utilities and Service Sys-
tems, of this Draft EIR, respectively.
C. Surrounding Land Uses
The project site is primarily surrounded by developed single family and rural
residential properties. These include large acreage properties located in unin-
corporated Nevada County outside the Town limit, but within the Sphere of
Influence (SOI), to the north, east, and south—the Juniper Hills and Martis
Peak residential subdivisions—and suburban subdivisions within the Town
limit to the west of the project site collectively referred to as “Glenshire” in-
cluding the Glenshire, Devonshire, Cambridge Estates, Elkhorn Ridge, and
The Meadows subdivisions. The surrounding subdivisions primarily com-
prise full-time residents (refer to Figure 3-4).
The Glenshire area to the west of the site is within the RES (Residential) 1-2
du/acre (dwelling unit per acre or du/acre) Town of Truckee 2025 General
Plan land use designation and includes parcels zoned RS-X (Residential Single
Family – No Further Subdivision), RS-1.0 (Residential Single Family –
1 du/acre), RR-X (Rural Residential – Built-Out), REC (Recreation), and PF
(Public Facilities). The 362-acre parcel adjacent to the eastern edge of the pro-
ject site and the 320-acre parcel adjacent to the northern edge of the project
site in unincorporated Nevada County are designated PD (Planned Develop-
ment) under the Nevada County General Plan and zoned IDR (Interim De-
velopment Reserve). South of the proposed project site are 20+-acre lots in
unincorporated Nevada County zoned AG (General Agriculture) and desig-
nated RUR-20 (Rural; 20 acre minimum parcel size) under the Nevada County
General Plan.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
EXISTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES
FIGURE 3-4
Project Site Area
Source: Google Earth, June 2011.
Raley Ranch
(Nevada County)
Raley Ranch
(Nevada County)
Juniper Hills
(Nevada County)
Juniper Hills
(Nevada County)Buck Meadows
(Nevada County)
Buck Meadows
(Nevada County)
Glenshire
Elementary
Glenshire
Elementary
Glenshire
Area
Glenshire
Area
Cambridge
Estates
Cambridge
Estates
The MeadowsThe Meadows
DevonshireDevonshire
Glenshire
Pond
Glenshire
Pond
I-8
0
I-8
0I-80I-80
M
artis P
eak R
oad
M
artis Peak R
oad
G l e nshire Drive
G l e nshire Drive
Glens
h
i
r
e
D
rive
Glens
h
i
r
e
D
rive
W h it e h o r s e Road
Hig
h
P
o
w
e
r
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
L
i
n
e
Hig
h
P
o
w
e
r
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
L
i
n
e
Tr
u
c
ke
e
R
ive
r
Tr
u
c
ke
e
R
ive
r
Glenshire Drive
Glenshire Drive
Truckee River
Truckee River
W h it e h o r s e Road
.250 .5 MilesNORTH
Edinburgh
Drive
Edinburgh
Drive
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-9
D. Project Objectives
The project tentative map is shown in Figure 3-5, and the project site plan is
shown in Figure 3-6. The applicant is requesting approval of a tentative map
with easement redescription to subdivide six parcels comprising 283.76 acres
into 185 residential housing lots. The project also includes approximately 4.5
miles of publicly accessible trails and approximately 176 acres of public open
space and natural habitat. The project objectives are to:
¤ Create a residential community compatible with adjacent neighborhoods
in the Town and Nevada County;
¤ Provide additional affordable housing in the Town;
¤ Provide low impact recreational opportunities (i.e. trails, trailheads, in-
formation/interpretive kiosks, and directional/way finding signage) for
future residents, surrounding neighbors and the public;
¤ Protect open space areas that serve as native habitat and wildlife corri-
dors;
¤ Cluster development, and enhance and improve the existing on-site in-
formal trail network to avoid environmentally-sensitive areas;
¤ Complement the natural forest setting through project design and land-
scaping;
¤ Achieve sustainable aspects of construction through green building prac-
tices; and
¤ Revegetate an approximately 7-acre portion of the site that was the loca-
tion of a previous fire.
E. Project Components
The proposed project has been reconfigured and subtle changes from previous
proposals were made throughout the project. Additional information on the
previous proposals can be found in Chapter 2 of this Draft EIR. The follow-
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-10
ing describes the proposed project components that are analyzed in this Draft
EIR:
1. Image and Character
a. Building Design
The project aims to integrate residential and recreation components with sur-
rounding residential developments on a site comprising informal trails, native
habitat, and wildlife resources. While the subdivision design is subject to
Planning Commission approval, the Town does not have design standards for
single-family home architecture.2 The project applicant has proposed that
Draft Architectural and Site Design Guidelines (Draft Design Guidelines),
have been developed for the project to achieve project goals and are included
in Appendix C of this Draft EIR, be incorporated into the project. The Draft
Design Guidelines were prepared by the applicant with the intent of establish-
ing a consistent design theme and break-up the massing of homes throughout
the project site. In general, the Draft Design Guidelines identify that the
primary colors of the project would blend with the native landscape (e.g. soil,
rock, trees) and individual house design would consider the natural topogra-
phy, sunlight exposure, and existing vegetation.
Other on-site structures such as fences and retaining walls would be con-
structed of natural materials (e.g. stone, architectural steel, wood, and timber)
and would be left either natural to weather or treated and stained to match
adjacent buildings. In addition, fencing in areas that border open space would
not include architectural features that could cause injury to wildlife (e.g. deer
jumping the fence). The Draft Design Guidelines also propose energy effi-
cient green building standards such as southern exposure and tree canopy
shading siting considerations, skylights, solar panels, radiant heating systems
and installation of energy star appliances and windows. For the purposes of
2 Town of Truckee Municipal Code, Title 18, Development Code, Chapter
18.94, Residential Subdivision Design Guidelines provides guidelines for developing
neighborhoods including site planning, energy conservation/solar orientation, and
circulation, but does not regulate single-family architecture.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
FIGURE 3-5
TENTATIVE MAP
Source: SCO Planning, Engineering, and Surveying, 2011.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
FIGURE 3-6
PROJECT SITE PLAN
Source: SCO Planning, Engineering & Surveying, April 2011.
4000 800 FeetNORTH
R
R
Martis Peak Road
Main Access Point
Edinburgh
Drive
Gated
Access
Inset map
*See Inset map 50’ Setback from 100 YR. Floodplain
Existing 100 YR. Floodplain
Wetlands - Meadow
Wetlands - Seasonal
Pebble Meadow
Historical Site
Restricted Building Envelope
2’ Soft Surface Trail (3.83 Miles)
12’ Gravel Trail/Sewer Access (0.76 Miles)
Recreation Area (24,015 sqft)
Open Space (176.17 acres)
Blue Line Waterway
Lot Areas within the 100-Year Floodplain
50-Foot Setback
Buck Spring
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-13
this Draft EIR, it is assumed these Draft Design Guidelines would be incorpo-
rated into features of the proposed project. The Canyon Springs Homeown-
ers Association would be responsible for regulating and monitoring the im-
plementation of the Draft Design Guidelines.
b. Form, Mass, and Scale
The project’s form, massing, and scale are proposed to have a low impact on
the landscape, in that the design of homes are proposed to take into consider-
ation the natural topography, sunlight exposure, and vegetation of the project
site. Building heights would be limited to 35 feet. The project includes
100-foot minimum setbacks along the westerly border near the area of Edin-
burgh Drive and the northwest corner of the project site. Housing lots are
designed to connect with the publicly accessible trail system and surrounding
open space while providing setback buffers between future homes and envi-
ronmental sensitive areas such as wetlands and ephemeral drainages.
c. Lighting
The project does not include the installation of street lighting. The Draft
Design Guidelines that have been developed for the project require that the
source, intensity, and type of exterior lighting be appropriate for the lighting
needs and that all on-site lighting be low-level illumination and shielded to
reduce light spill or glare.
d. Landscaping and Planting
The Town does not regulate landscaping for single-family homes, but does
require revegetation of disturbed areas created by road, utility, drainage, and
similar construction and use of temporary and permanent Best Management
Practices (BMPs) during construction.3 The landscaping proposed in the
Draft Design Guidelines encourages the use of native, sustainable landscaping
indigenous to the Truckee region on individual lots. The landscaping has
been designed to deflect wind, moderate heat and glare impacts, muffle noise,
3 Town of Truckee Municipal Code, Title 18, Development Code, Chapter
18.40, Landscape Standards, Section 18.40.040.A.2.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-14
reduce soil erosion, conserve water, reduce risks associated with wildfire haz-
ards, promote trail safety, and restore damaged areas. As shown on Figure
3-7, the project includes replanting native vegetation on the approximately
seven-acre portion of the project site that was the location of a previous fire.
Jeffery pine saplings will be clustered and spacing will be varied for a natural
appearance at approximately 35 feet apart.
As stated above, a well-developed network of unpaved roads and trails is dis-
tributed throughout the site and is accessed by nearby residents for year-
round unauthorized uses, such as skiing, snowshoeing, snowmobiling, hiking,
mountain biking, horse riding, and off-road vehicle riding. The project in-
cludes planting with species known to be used as browse or herbaceous forage
by migrating or summer-resident mule deer (e.g. native perennial grasses and
bitterbrush) to restore summer range in upland areas damaged by unauthor-
ized public uses of the property. Landscaping would include adequate defen-
sible space and include fire resistant native and adapted species, as well as the
use of mulch to prevent erosion on bare soil.
Under Section 4526 of the California Public Resources Code the project site
is considered timberland because it is capable of and available for commercial
production of lumber or other commercial forest crops.4 Upon project ap-
proval in compliance with Section 1034 of the California Forest Practice
Rules, a Timber Harvesting Plan (THP)5 would be prepared prior to the
4 According to the California Public Resources Code, “Timberland” is land,
other than land owned by the federal government and land designated by the board as
experimental forest land, which is available for, and capable of, growing a crop of trees
of any commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest products, includ-
ing Christmas trees. Commercial species shall be determined by the board on a dis-
trict basis after consultation with the district committees and others.
5 The THP process substitutes for the EIR process under CEQA because the
timber harvesting regulatory program has been certified pursuant to PRC Section
21080.5. California Forest Practice Rules, page 26, Subchapter 2, Application of For-
est Practice Rules, Article 1, Section 896(a), page 26.
Planting Area
Boundary
Soft Surface Trail
Project Boundary
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
FIGURE 3-7
REFORESTATION PLAN
Source: SCO Planning, Engineering & Surveying, April 22, 2011.
1000 200 FeetNORTH
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-16
issuance of building permits by the Town. The THP would describe the
boundaries, conditions, and ownership of the land to be cleared for project
buildout.
e. Signage
Signage is the term used to describe the graphic designs, as symbols, emblems,
or words, used for giving directions or warning. The project would provide
signage to both the vehicular and pedestrian viewers. The project’s street and
trail signage would comply with the Town’s sign requirements.6 The pro-
posed signage would direct traffic, identify speed limits, provide street names,
identify deer crossing areas, as well as, trail access points, permitted trail uses
and trail distance. In addition, trail signage would provide users with educa-
tional information regarding the qualities of the natural characteristics of the
project site – both biological and ecological. Trail signage would include trail
use protocol to ensure user safety and the protection of wildlife and the natu-
ral habitat, including known cultural resources. Flora and fauna education,
seasonal condition warnings, and other relevant information depending on
the trail would be included. Other trail use protocol would include inform-
ing the public that dogs must be under both immediate voice and visual con-
trol (but in support of wildlife, dog leashes are recommended May through
October) and that no motorized use of the trails by off-road vehicles (e.g. dirt
bikes and snowmobiles) would be permitted at any time. An example of
proposed trail signs is illustrated on Figure 4.13-1 in Section 4.13 of this Draft
EIR.
2. Housing Lots
The proposed project would include 177 market-rate, single-family lots rang-
ing in size from 14,000 to 31,000 square feet. Although the construction of
housing is not proposed at this time, for environmental review purposes the
average building footprint per home would be approximately 2,500 square
feet. The mandatory Affordable Housing component is calculated in accord-
6 Town of Truckee Municipal Code, Title 18, Development Code, Chapter
18.56, Sign Design Guidelines.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-17
ance with the Town Housing Element Program H-1.3.2, which requires a
minimum 15 percent affordable housing allocation for new residential devel-
opments (i.e. eight lots.)7 The total number of for-sale lots proposed to be
created is 185 (177 market-rate single-family and eight affordable lots). For
the purposes of this environmental analysis it is assumed the affordable hous-
ing would include a combination of 2-, 3-, and/or 4-unit buildings totaling 28
affordable housing units8 and would be constructed on-site. However,
whether the required affordable housing provision would be sold, developed,
or donated for future multi-family attached housing has yet to be determined.
It has not yet been determined whether the affordable housing units would be
constructed on adjacent lots, or whether the units would be dispersed
throughout the project site. If it is determined that the 28 affordable housing
units would be developed off-site, additional environmental review would be
required.
Secondary residential units are allowed as a matter of right in the Single-
Family Residential (RS) zoning district, subject to Zoning Clearance approval
and provided certain size, setback, and design conditions are met.9 The re-
quirements for second units in all permitted zones state that there shall be no
more than one second unit per legal parcel and second units shall not be al-
lowed on a parcel developed with two or more dwellings. The construction
of secondary units is not proposed as part of this project; however, the con-
struction of secondary units is allowed.
7 Town of Truckee 2007-2014 Housing Element Appendix HD, Past Perfor-
mance, page HD-3.
8 185 lots x 15 percent =27.75 affordable units.
9 Town of Truckee 2007-2014 Housing Element Appendix HB, Housing Con-
straints and Resources, pages HB-13 and -14; Town of Truckee Municipal Code, Title
18, Development Code, Chapter 18.58, Standards for Specific Land Uses, Section
18.58.230 (Secondary Residential Units).
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-18
3. Open Space and Recreation Area
a. Open Space and Wildlife Corridor
Under the proposed project a total of 176.17 acres is included as public open
space. This would exceed the 50 percent minimum required by Town stand-
ard by 69.67 acres or 65.4 percent.10 The public open space would be perma-
nently reserved by protective conservation easement. As illustrated on Figure
3-8 the entire 70.76 acres within the OS zone on the project site is proposed
to be reserved and protected consistent with the Town’s zoning in an effort
to maximize open space, minimize the loss of native vegetation and potential
damage to identified on-site historic resources, and provide wildlife habitat
and movement corridors.11
b. Multi-Use Recreation Area
While the Town does not require recreation amenities for new subdivisions,
the project includes a 24,015-square-foot recreational area to be centrally lo-
cated within the project site to serve as a neighborhood center and would be
available for use by future residents. As shown on Figure 3-6 (above), the
recreation area would be adjacent to the proposed publicly accessible trail
system and would be surrounded by open space on the north, south, and west
sides. The east side would be adjacent to the internal roadway. The proposed
recreational area would include parking and would ultimately be designed and
maintained by the new Canyon Springs Homeowners Association that would
be established during Phase 1 of the project construction (see phasing discus-
sion below). The specific components of the recreational area would be de-
termined at the discretion of the new Canyon Springs Homeowners Associa-
tion and would require a Conditional Use Permit from the Town. The recre-
ational area could include features such as a tot-lot, swing set, play structure,
picnic shelter, pool, and/or multi-use play court.
10 Town of Truckee Municipal Code, Title 18, Development Code, Chapter
18.46 Open Space/Cluster Requirements, Section 18.46.050, Minimum Open Space.
11 Town of Truckee Municipal Code, Title 18, Development Code, Chapter
18.46 Open Space/Cluster Requirements, Section 18.46.060, Open Space Standards.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
FIGURE 3-8
OPEN SPACE MAP
Source: SCO Planning, Engineering & Surveying, April 2011.
Note: The project would also include a 4.5 mile publicly-accessible trail system on the project site.
Main entrance roadway off Martis Peak Road, not shown on this map, would include a portion
of this trail system.
4000 800 FeetNORTH
Project Site (288.76 acres)
Development Footprint
Public Open Space within the Project Site (176.17 acres)
Town of Truckee Zoning
OS = Open Space (70.76 acres)
R S-1.0 = Single Family Residential (213 acres)
OS
OS
RS-1.0
RS-1.0
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-20
4. Circulation
a. Vehicular Roadways
New internal roads would be created throughout the project site. All internal
circulation would interface at various points with two links to the surround-
ing area (described below). Internal roadways would be privately owned,
maintained, and snow plowed by the new Canyon Springs Homeowners As-
sociation until revenue neutrality is reached. Following revenue neutrality,
the Town would plow and maintain the streets as public streets. The internal
roadway system would provide access to residential areas and the recreation
area on the project site. Safe crossings for pedestrians would be included as
part of the internal roadway design and would be provided at points where
the proposed trail system (discussed below) intersects vehicular roadways.
b. Vehicular Access
The project would include two vehicular access points–one for emergency
access only and one unrestricted access. A primary access point would con-
nect to Martis Peak Road to the north of the project site. A secondary gated
access would connect to Edinburgh Drive to the west of the project site and
would only be open to emergency vehicles. These access points are illustrated
in Figure 3-9.
The project’s primary vehicular ingress and egress would occur off Martis
Peak Road and would connect to Glenshire Drive at the Glenshire
Drive/Whitehorse Road/Martis Peak Road intersection. Martis Peak Road
and the 0.4-mile (2,000-foot) project access road (i.e. Woodlinde Lane) are
located within the jurisdiction of Nevada County. A portion of the proposed
access point at Martis Peak Road has been recently paved for approximately
60 feet past Martis Peak Road and then turns into a narrow unpaved road-
way.
Edinburgh Drive is a short residential roadway in the Glenshire neighbor-
hood that ends on a cul-de-sac. Edinburgh Drive connects to a network of
other local residential roads that exit onto Glenshire Drive near the Glenshire
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
FIGURE 3-9
Inset map
*See Inset map
CIRCULATION MAP
Source: SCO Planning, Engineering & Surveying, April 2011.
4000 800 FeetNORTH
Martis Peak
Road
Edinburgh
Drive
Main Entrance
Glenshire Drive/
Martis Peak Road intersection
#
1
2
3
Gated
Entrance
A
B
C
D
Public Access Points
2’ Soft Surface Trail
12’ Gravel Trail / Sewer Access
Paved Roads
Pedestrian Footbridge
abc
1,320 feet = Maximum cul-de-sac length
Speed limit = 25 mph
= Bridge
Notes: Two 12-foot travel lanes
Two 4-foot shoulders
One 5-foot pedestrain walkway
4
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-22
Clubhouse. The Edinburgh Drive access would be gated and only accessed
for emergency use by fire and safety personnel via keyed access.
As shown on Figure 3-10, the project roadways have been designed to meet
the Town’s Public Involvement & Engineering Standards (PIES). In general,
all the roads in the internal circulation network would have a 60-foot-wide
right-of-way.12 However, the emergency access connection to Edinburgh
Drive would have a reduced roadway width. All roadways would include
20-foot snow storage easements (SSE) on each side. In addition, the project
would adhere to the maximum cul-de-sac length of 1,320 feet and maximum
speed design of 25 miles per hour.
The project’s roadway network includes four bridges. The locations of the
bridges are shown on Figure 3-9. Each of the four bridges would have two
12-foot travel lanes with shoulders and a raised pedestrian lane on one side.
The height of the bridges would be designed to be low profile, with the safety
rail/guardrail along the bridges having a minimum height of 42 inches for
safety purposes. The safety rail/guardrails would be constructed with a com-
bination of wood and steel materials. The bridges would be built per Town
standards and would be constructed of steel and concrete decking supported
by two concrete abutments that would be located outside of the 100-year
floodplain. Bridges would be built to ensure that the undercrossing is of suf-
ficient height to allow for safe passage of wildlife.
c. Pedestrian Access – Trails
The project includes a 4.5 mile publicly accessible trail system made up of
approximately 3.83 miles of 2-foot-wide soft-surface earthen trails and .76
mile of 12-foot-wide gravel trails. The gravel trail system would also provide
the Tahoe-Truckee Sanitary Agency maintenance access to the sections of the
six-inch sewer pipeline that would be installed along portions of this trail and
12 Town’s Public Involvement & Engineering Standards, Standard Drawing
(SD) #6. SD#6 is the standard for a Local Road (Public).
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Source: SCO Planning, Engineering & Surveying, April 2011.
ROADWAY SECTIONS
FIGURE 3-10
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-24
would continue to provide Liberty Energy – California Pacific Electric Com-
pany maintenance access to the existing overhead high-power transmission.
The proposed trail system includes many internal access points and four pub-
lic access points. The public access points utilize existing trail alignments to
provide connectivity to the surrounding community for permitted and lawful
use of on-site trails by the public. As illustrated on Figure 3-9 the four public
access points are located at: A) the Glenshire Drive/Whitehorse Road/Martis
Peak Road intersection, B) the project’s west border connecting to the trail
along the tributary exiting near the Elkhorn Ridge Owner Association, C)
the project’s west border at the access road of the Liberty Energy – California
Pacific Electric Company substation, and D) at the end of Edinburgh Drive.
The project would not include sidewalks and, in keeping with the project
objectives to provide low impact recreational opportunities, no designated
trailhead parking would be provided.
The proposed publicly accessible trail system has been designed to make use
of some of the existing trail network and minimize the need to construct new
trail segments. Redundant duplicate trails and conflicts between new road-
ways and lot locations would account for approximately 1.75-mile of trails to
be removed and replaced, and ½-mile of trail would be restored. Trail cross-
ings would be formalized across existing drainages through utilization of low-
profile wood plank boardwalk-type bridge crossings or similar structures.
Figure 3-9 shows the locations of these proposed footbridges.
The trails would be accessible for summer and winter non-motorized uses
such as hiking, running, mountain biking, equestrian use, cross-country ski-
ing, and snowshoeing. While dog walking is considered a permitted use, for
the protection of wildlife, all dogs must be under immediate voice and visual
control (but in support of wildlife, dog leashes are recommended May
through October). Motorized use of the trails by off-road vehicles, dirt bikes,
and snowmobiles would not be permitted on the project site. As noted
above, the trail network would include appropriate signage for giving direc-
tions, flora and fauna education, providing warnings, and other relevant in-
formation depending on the trail. The publicly accessible trails would be
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-25
privately owned and maintained by the new Canyon Springs Homeowners
Association.
d. Bicycle Access
While there are no bicycle lanes currently proposed as part of the project, the
project’s publicly accessible trail system would be accessible to mountain bike
users and would connect to the Town’s proposed recreational trail corridor as
identified in the Town of Truckee Trails & Bikeways Master Plan (TBMP). The
TBMP illustrates a proposed corridor for a recreational trail (surface to be
determined) generally crossing the project site in an east and west direction.13
The vehicular roadway network would include signage to instruct drivers to
be aware of cyclists and to share the road.
e. Emergency Vehicle Access
Emergency vehicles would circulate through the project area using the inter-
nal roadway system. As previously described, primarily access would be
from Martis Peak Road, and secondary emergency vehicular access would be
provided at Edinburgh Drive. This access point would be gated and would be
restricted to use by emergency vehicles only. The gate would be pad-locked
and only accessible to fire and safety personnel via keyed access during emer-
gency events. Fire lanes and turning radii would be designed in cooperation
with local officials (e.g. Truckee Fire Protection District) and would be ade-
quate for emergency and fire equipment vehicles. Pavements would be de-
signed to support loads created by emergency vehicle traffic up to 40,000
pounds. Fire hydrants and fire suppression system connections would be
incorporated in locations accessible to fire equipment at a maximum distance
of 500 feet apart.
13 TBMP Appendix D, Exhibit 1, Existing and Proposed Trail and Bikeway
Network, Section 42, as of May 17, 2007.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-26
F. Implementation
1. Snow Management
Snow management would meet the Town’s snow storage requirements.14 As
previously discussed, all on-site roadways would include a 20-foot SSE on
each side.15 Snow removal on the project site would be the responsibility of
the new Canyon Springs Homeowners Association until revenue neutrality is
reached and then subsequently the responsibility of the Town of Truckee.
Snow management would be addressed to ensure that residents and visitors
are provided safe and convenient access to and from their homes and within
the public use areas (i.e. mailbox cluster area and recreational area) during
storm events. Single-family homes do not have minimum snow storage re-
quirements.
2. Utilities
Public services for the project site would be provided by Southwest Gas (nat-
ural gas), Liberty Energy – California Pacific Electric Company (electricity),
Truckee-Donner Public Utilities District (water), Truckee Sanitary District
and Tahoe-Truckee Sanitary Agency (sewer), AT&T (telephone), Cebridge
Television (cable), and Tahoe Truckee Sierra Disposal (solid waste).
There is currently no utility infrastructure for the proposed project on the
project site. An existing overhead high-power transmission line and associat-
ed access road spans the project site in a southwest-northeast orientation for
approximately 2,300 feet. The project would include the installation of on-
site, underground infrastructure for natural gas, electricity, water, sewer, tele-
phone, and cable, and off-site, underground improvements to the Truckee-
Donner Public Utilities District (water) network. As shown on Figures
3-11A and 3-11B, the proposed on-site water mains would comprise 8-inch
pipes and the sewer mains would comprise both 4-inch and 6-inch pipes.
14 Town of Truckee Municipal Code, Title 18, Development Code, Chapter
18.30, General Property and Development Use Standards, Section 18.30.130 - Snow
Storage.
15 Town’s Public Involvement & Engineering Standards, Section 4.
POND
POND
POND
POND
POND
UTILITIES AND DRAINAGE MAP
FIGURE 3-11A
Source: SCO Planning, Engineering & Surveying, April 2011.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
POND
POND
POND
POND
UTILITIES AND DRAINAGE MAP
FIGURE 3-11B
Source: SCO Planning, Engineering & Surveying, April 2011.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
POND
POND
POND
POND
POND
POND
POND
POND
POND
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-29
Infrastructure improvements would be comprised of approximately 2,600
linear feet of new off-site water mains. As shown on Figure 3-12, the new
10-inch water main would be constructed within the existing roadway rights-
of-way and public utilities easements. Project Phases 1, 2, and 3 (discussed in
detail below) would require approximately 300 linear feet of new water main
beginning at the end of Courtenay Court and connecting the project’s west-
ern border and 2,300 linear feet of new water main beginning south of the
intersection of Somerset Drive and connecting to the “upper zone,” and run-
ning northeast up Courtenay Lane to Regency Circle to Edinburgh Drive and
to the western boundary of the project site.
The new water mains would be constructed within the roadway shoulder
where conflicts with existing utilities such as gas are not present. Some of the
proposed water main will likely be constructed within the roadway prism
(i.e. the portion of the roadway right-of-way between the ditch lines, curb
lines, or toe of fills) following the same alignment of an existing steel water
main recently abandoned in place by the Truckee Donner Public Utilities
District. The new water mains are necessary to provide the project with ade-
quate water supply and to meet the Truckee Fire Protection District mini-
mum flow requirements of 1,500 gallons per minute (gpm) for two-hour du-
ration with 20-pounds per square inch (psi) residual.16,17
3. Drainage
The wetland study prepared for the project site, included as Appendix D of
this Draft EIR, identified a total of 7.78 acres of wetlands and other waters of
the United States within the project boundaries. A breakdown of these wa-
ters includes 5.29 acres of wet meadows, 0.65-acre of riverine emergent wet-
lands, and 1.84 acres of other waters, including unnamed tributaries of the
16 Written correspondence, Bob Bena, Interim Fire Chief, Truckee Fire Protec-
tion District, to Denyelle Nishimori, Associate, Town of Truckee, May 12, 2011.
17 Email correspondence, Neil Kaufman, Water System Engineer, TDPUD, to
Denyelle Nishimori, Associate, Town of Truckee, August 25, 2011.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
OFF-SITE UTILITIES MAP
FIGUWRE 3-12
Source: SCO Planning, Engineering & Surveying, July 20, 2011.
Note: Offsite water infrastructure would be constructed as part of Phase 1.
NORTH
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-31
Truckee River.18 Ephemeral drainages that include wetlands trend northeast-
erly through the northern, central, and southern portions of the site. As il-
lustrated on Figure 3-13, two of these drainages are mapped blue-line seasonal
waterways on the Martis Peak Quadrangle 7.5-minute series United State Ge-
ological Survey (USGS) topographic map, however, all of the waters within
the project site are tributaries to the Truckee River.
As shown on Figure 3-6, all proposed building envelopes are outside of the
Town-required 50-foot setback from designated 100-year floodplains for the
two blue-line waterways.19 A minimum 50-foot setback to building envelopes
would be maintained along all other on-site ephemeral drainages, although
not a Town requirement. Private housing lot boundaries are proposed within
50 feet of Buck Spring (one of the two blueline waterways) 100-year flood-
plain (see Figure 3-6). As previously discussed, the proposed site layout in-
corporates four floodplain road crossings. Steel bridges with concrete decking
supported by two abutments are planned to span the width of the drainage
way, which has been designed to accommodate a 100-year flood event. The
project includes a 100-foot setback from the main drainage corridor and a 50-
foot setback from all wet meadows (i.e. Buck Spring) and secondary/smaller
drainages. For a more detailed discussion on the drainage conditions of the
site, see Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR.
Surface drainage from impervious surfaces, such as residential roofs and
driveways located within the proposed restricted building envelopes, will be
collected, treated, and contained on-site using low impact development (LID)
18 These wetland boundaries were verified by the ACOE on October 11, 2011.
The previous delineation was verified by the ACOE on June 7, 2005. The current
delineation includes more riverine emergent wetlands and wet meadow than the pre-
vious delineation.
19 Town of Truckee Municipal Code, Title 18, Development Code, Chapter
18.38, Lake and River/Stream Corridor Development, Section 18.30.040.A.2.a - River
and Stream Development Standards.
Project
Site
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Source: MSN TerraServer, 2005 / Quad Knopf, 2007.
ON-SITE BLUE LINE SEASONAL WATERWAYS
FIGURE 3-13
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-33
methods of drainage treatment. Infiltration trenches, rainwater gardens and
small retention, or subsurface structures would be utilized. Figure 3-11 shows
the location of proposed drainage ditches and retention ponds.
Treatment of paved roadway surfaces will be directed to on-site retention
basins, infiltration trenches and/or bio-swales designed to accommodate a 20-
year, 1-hour storm event per Town and the Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB), Lahontan Region requirements.
4. Grading
Grading for infrastructure and roadways would be balanced on-site. The
cut/fill estimates for the infrastructure and roadways include approximately
15,000 cubic yards of cut and 15,000 cubic yards of fill. The grading for resi-
dential lots, occurring at the time of home construction, would be balanced
on-site. As the project’s phases are built out, temporary stockpiles would be
used during grading and filling activities. Minor grading would occur within
the existing roadway rights-of-way and public utilities easements for the in-
stallation of the off-site utilities improvements and would be balanced on-site.
5. Construction Phasing Schedule/Map Recordation Timeline
Construction of approximately 462,500 square feet of for-sale, market-rate
single-family and multi-family homes on 185 lots would occur consistent with
market demand.20 Project infrastructure construction including approximate-
ly 15,976 linear feet of roadway, on-site utilities, retention ponds, and 2,610
linear feet of off-site utilities installation would span an eight-year period.
Project infrastructure construction would coincide with recordation of up to
eight final maps and implementation of the following eight development
phases (refer to Figure 3-14), which are anticipated to begin by spring 2013
and are proposed to be completed by fall 2020. On-site utilities and retention
ponds would be constructed at the time required for each corresponding
Phase.
20 For the purposes of this environmental analysis homes are estimated to aver-
age 2,500 square feet (185 lots times 2,500 square feet equals 462,500 total square feet).
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT PHASING MAP
FIGURE 3-14
Source: SCO Planning, Engineering & Surveying, April 2011.
Edinburgh
Drive
Note: Main entrance roadway off
Martis Peak Road and off-site
water infrastructure, not shown
on this map, would be
constructed as part of Phase 1.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-35
a. Development Phases
1. 37 lots (#1-9, 32-35, 38-45, 62-67, 183-185, 164-167), a 24,015-square-foot
recreation area, 7,187 linear feet of roadway, 4 vehicular bridges, 4.5 miles
of trails, and off-site utilities.
2. 16 lots (#46-61) and 800 linear feet of roadway.
3. 24 lots (#10-31, and 36-37), 1,338 linear feet of roadway.
4. 18 lots (#68-85), 892 linear feet of roadway.
5. 15 lots (#168-182), 725 linear feet of roadway.
6. 35 lots (#89-107, 148-163), 2,037 linear feet of roadway.
7. 19 lots (#124-142), 1,303 linear feet of roadway.
8. 21 lots (#108-123, 143-147), and 1,694 linear feet of roadway.
In general, all construction staging would occur within the project bounda-
ries, and with the exception of utilities upgrades per the Truckee-Donner
Public Utilities District (water) requirements. Construction staging areas
would shift within the site throughout the phases of the project. Most con-
struction phases would last approximately 18 to 24 months but some may be
as long as 24 to 30 months. Some phases may be under construction simulta-
neously. Off-site infrastructure improvements would be installed during
Phase 1. Buildout of the future homes is anticipated to take 20 or more years.
Custom homes such as those proposed for the project typically take 8 to 12
months to complete.
Individual homes may be under construction simultaneously. The affordable
housing units would be constructed proportionately with for-sale home con-
struction for each phase.
6. Required Project Approvals
The Town of Truckee is the Lead Agency for purposes of complying with
CEQA and is the primary public agency responsible for approving projects
on these properties. However, this Draft EIR may be used by various gov-
ernmental decision-makers for discretionary permits and actions that are nec-
essary or may be requested in connection with the project, as well as any oth-
er discretionary permits and actions that may be identified during the envi-
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-36
ronmental review and entitlement process. The primary discretionary action
necessary for the project is approval of the Tentative Map by the Town to
divide six parcels totaling 283.76 acres into 185 for-sale, market-rate, single-
family and multi-family lots, and five open space parcels totaling 176.17 acres
to redescribe Street/Easements (Doc. #97-019126, #88-15517, #84-31417). Ap-
proval of a Minor Use Permit for disturbance within 200 feet of a wetland is
also required.21 In order to construct multi-family units (11 or more) in the
RS-1.0 Zoning District, a Use Permit is required. It is possible that Use Per-
mit review would occur after approval of the Tentative Map if the applicant
wants to build multi-family units in the RS-1.0 Zoning District.
The following approval actions from other agencies will be done concurrent-
ly with approval of the overall Tentative Map:
¤ Nevada County for approval of site access outside the Town limit.
¤ Nevada County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) and
Truckee Donner Public Utility District (TDPUD) for approval of an-
nexation of the site, currently within the sphere of influence, into the
TDPUD.
¤ California Department of Forestry for approval of a timberland conver-
sion permit.
¤ TDPUD for water service.
¤ Truckee Sanitary District for sewer service.
¤ Lahontan RWQCB for approval of permits relating to water quality.
¤ Minor Use Permit pursuant to Section 18.46.040.C of the Town of
Truckee Development Code
21 Town of Truckee Municipal Code, Title 18, Development Code, Chapter
18.30, General Property Development Standards, Section 18.30.050.F.3.
4 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
4-1
This chapter consists of 15 sections that evaluate the environmental impacts
of the proposed Canyon Springs Subdivision project. In accordance with
Appendix G, Environmental Review Checklist, of the California Environ-
mental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the potential environmental effects
of the proposed project are analyzed for the following environmental issue
areas:
¤ Aesthetics
¤ Agricultural and Forestry Resources
¤ Air Quality
¤ Biological Resources
¤ Cultural Resources
¤ Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
¤ Greenhouse Gas Emissions
¤ Hazards and Hazardous Materials
¤ Hydrology and Water Quality
¤ Land Use and Planning
¤ Noise
¤ Population and Housing
¤ Public Services and Recreation
¤ Transportation and Traffic
¤ Utilities and Service Systems
A. Format of the Environmental Evaluation
Each section in Chapter 4 generally follows the same format and consists of
the following subsections:
¤ The Regulatory Framework subsection contains an overview of the feder-
al, State, and local laws and regulations applicable to each environmental
review topic. As the development of the proposed project would be re-
quired to adhere to all applicable federal, State, and local statutes and reg-
ulations related to construction and operation, compliance is considered
part of the overall project.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
4-2
¤ The Existing Conditions subsection describes current conditions with re-
gard to the environmental factor reviewed.
¤ The Standards of Significance subsection tells how an impact is judged to
be significant in this EIR. These standards are based on the CEQA
Guidelines and other regulatory criteria where noted.
¤ The Impact Discussion gives an overview of potential impacts of the pro-
ject and tells why impacts were found to be significant or less than signif-
icant. This section includes a discussion of the cumulative impacts of the
proposed project.
¤ The Impacts and Mitigation Measures section numbers and lists identified
impacts and identifies measures that would mitigate each impact, where
such measures are available.
In Sections 4.1 through 4.15, each numbered impact is considered significant
prior to mitigation, unless it is specifically identified as less than significant.
Mitigation measures have been suggested that would reduce significant im-
pacts to less-than-significant levels. Impacts would be less than significant
after mitigation unless they are noted as significant and unavoidable in the
text.
All mitigation measures are stated with conditional language ("should") be-
cause they are recommendations, and not conditions of approval for the pro-
ject, unless they are specifically adopted as conditions by the Town. Under
CEQA, an EIR is required to identify mitigation measures that could reduce
identified impacts to less-than-significant levels. However, the Town is not
required to adopt these mitigation measures, even after the EIR is certified.
The Town could also require alternative mitigation measures that are equally
effective, or it could find that the identified measures are infeasible and allow
the project without mitigation under a finding of overriding consideration. If
the Town adopts the suggested mitigation measures as conditions of approval,
then their language will be changed from the conditional ”should” to the
mandatory ”shall.”
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
4-3
B. Cumulative Impact Analysis
Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to discuss cumulative
impacts of a project when the project's incremental effect is cumulatively
considerable. A cumulative impact consists of an impact created as a result of
the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other rea-
sonably foreseeable projects causing related impacts.
Where the incremental effect of a project is not "cumulatively considerable,"
a lead agency need not consider that effect significant, but must briefly de-
scribe its basis for concluding that the incremental effect is not cumulatively
considerable. Where the cumulative impact caused by the project's incremen-
tal effect and the effects of other projects is not significant, the EIR must
briefly indicate why the cumulative impact is not significant. The results of
the cumulative impact analysis are presented in each Impact Discussion sec-
tion in Sections 4.1 through 4.15.
1. Geographic Area for Cumulative Analysis
Individual cumulative impacts may occur over different geographic areas.
The cumulative discussions in Sections 4.1 through 4.15 explain the geograph-
ic scope of the area affected by each cumulative effect (e.g. watershed or air
basin). The geographic area considered for each cumulative impact depends
upon the impact that is being analyzed. For example, in assessing aesthetic
impacts, only development within the vicinity of the project would contrib-
ute to a cumulative visual effect. In assessing air quality impacts, on the other
hand, all development within the air basin contributes to regional emissions
of criteria pollutants, and a basinwide projection of emissions is the best tool
for determining the cumulative effect. For most resource issues, the cumula-
tive context evaluated in this EIR is in the Town of Truckee and surrounding
unincorporated Nevada County.
2. Cumulative Projects Considered
The CEQA Guidelines provide two approaches to analyzing cumulative im-
pacts. The first is the “list approach,” which requires a listing of past, present,
and reasonably anticipated future projects producing related or cumulative
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
4-4
impacts. The second is the projections-based approach wherein the relevant
growth projections contained in an adopted General Plan or related planning
document that is designed to evaluate regional or area-wide conditions are
summarized. A reasonable combination of the two approaches may also be
used.
The cumulative impact analysis in this Draft EIR relies on a projections-based
approach from the Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan supplemented by an
understanding of past, present, and probable future projects in the vicinity of
the Canyon Springs Subdivision project site that, when considered with the
effects of the project, may result in cumulative effects. The cumulative analy-
sis discussions contained in Sections 4.1 through 4.15 include a discussion of
the growth projections and references to specific projects as relevant to the
impact analysis.
The residential properties surrounding the project site to the west within the
Town limit are primarily considered “built-out” under the Town’s zoning
designations RS-X (Residential Single-Family – Built-Out) and RR-X (Rural
Residential – Built-Out); accordingly, no substantial reasonably foreseeable
projects would occur in this area. Furthermore, according to the Nevada
County Community Development Agency, the only reasonably foreseeable
project in the vicinity of the project site is the proposed Boca Quarry Expan-
sion project located on a 230-acre site approximately 2.5 miles northeast of
the project site and north of Interstate 80. In February 2011 the Boca Quarry
Expansion project was approved to allow the currently permitted Boca Quar-
ry (U06-012) to expand its extraction area of approximately 40 acres to an
extraction area of approximately 158 acres. However, the approval was ap-
pealed and additional environmental studies are currently underway.1 This
project has been taken into consideration for this cumulative impact analysis
where applicable.
1 Tod Herman, Senior Planner, Nevada County Community Development
Agency. Email correspondence with The Planning Center | DC&E, September 8,
2011.
4.1 AESTHETICS
4.1-1
This section describes the visual resources on the project site and in the sur-
rounding area, and evaluates the effects the proposed project would have on
these resources, including effects on visual character, scenic views and vistas,
scenic resources, and light and glare.
A. Regulatory Framework
This section summarizes key regulations and programs applicable to aesthet-
ics on the project site.
1. Federal Regulations
There are no federal regulations pertaining to aesthetics that apply to this
project.
2. State Laws and Regulations
a. California Scenic Highway Program
The California Scenic Highway Program, maintained by the California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans), protects scenic State highway
corridors from changes which would diminish the aesthetic value of lands
adjacent to the highways. State laws governing the Scenic Highway Program
are found in the Streets and Highways Code, Section 260 et seq.
3. Local Regulations and Policies
a. Town of Truckee General Plan
The Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan includes several goals and policies that
relate to aesthetics. Table 4.1-1 lists these goals and policies.
b. Town of Truckee Development Code
The Town of Truckee Development Code, adopted February 10, 2010, im-
plements the goals and policies of the General Plan, regulating the form and
character of development in the Town. The Development Code is part of the
Town’s Municipal Code, and includes the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision
Code. The Town of Truckee Development Code includes a number of
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
AESTHETICS
4.1-2
TABLE 4.1-1 TRUCKEE GENERAL PLAN POLICIES PERTAINING TO
AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES
Policy or
Goal No. Goals and Policies
Goal LU-9 Support development patterns in the Planning Area that do not nega-
tively impact the Town of Truckee, and that enhance the quality of life
for residents of Truckee and the wider region.
LU-P9.7 Oppose development within the Planning Area that significantly
impacts the Town’s natural ecosystems and viewsheds.
Goal CC-1 Preserve open space in Truckee that contributes to the town’s scenic
mountain community character.
CC-P1.1 Utilize the mechanisms and strategies identified in the Conserva-
tion and Open Space Element of the General Plan as a tool to
actively protect open space in Truckee, including that containing
or contributing to the town’s scenic mountain qualities.
CC-P1.2 Ensure that all new development, occurring at all scales and densi-
ties, maximizes the provision of all types of open space, including
scenic open space that contributes to and enhances the town’s
community character.
CC-P1.3 Cluster new development so as to preserve the maximum amount
of desired types of open space, as identified in the Conservation
and Open Space Element.
CC-P1.4 Create a connected network of open spaces in Truckee that is
accessible to the community for outdoor recreation and other use
and enjoyment, as a key aspect of local community character.
Goal CC-2 Preserve the natural beauty of Truckee, including the Town’s scenic
resources, views and vistas, and the visual quality of the town’s steep
slopes, ridge and bluff lines and hillsides.
CC-P2.1 Protect views of hillsides, prominent slope exposures, and ridge
and bluff lines through a clustering requirement for residential
development that concentrates development on the most level and
least visible portions of hillside sites.
CC-P2.3 Prohibit intensive and visually obtrusive development on promi-
nent hillsides, ridges, bluffs, and steep slope areas in Truckee.
CC-P2.4 Ensure that new development in Truckee’s lowland areas, includ-
ing its forested areas and meadowlands, and the Truckee River
Valley, contributes to and enhances the scenic quality and visual
harmony of the built environment that comprises the Truckee
townscape.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
AESTHETICS
TABLE 4.1-1 TRUCKEE GENERAL PLAN POLICIES PERTAINING TO
AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES (CONTINUED)
4.1-3
Policy or
Goal No. Goals and Policies
CC-P2.5 Preserve the scenic qualities of the Truckee River and other natu-
ral waterways through setback standards, as identified in the Con-
servation and Open Space Element, and by ensuring that new
development respects and enhances the aesthetic qualities and nat-
ural environment of these river corridors and waterways.
CC-P2.7 Require electric, telecommunications and cable television facilities
serving new development to be installed underground wherever
possible. Where undergrounding is impractical, above ground
antennae and telephone and high voltage transmission lines shall
be located out of significant scenic vistas.
CC-P2.10 Encourage the preservation of trees and native vegetation, includ-
ing specimen trees, in development projects.
Goal CC-4 Protect views of the night sky and minimize the effects of light
pollution.
CC-P4.2 Require light fixtures to be designed and sited so as to minimize
light pollution, glare, and light trespass into adjoining properties.
Goal CC-5 Goal CC-5: Maintain the town’s unique community character, in-
cluding a high standard of town design in all development in Truckee.
CC-P5.1 Ensure that planning and development decisions are oriented to-
wards the maintenance of Truckee’s unique character, reflecting
the following considerations:
¤ Identification of specific types of centers, residential neighbor-
hoods, employment districts, corridors and gateways.
¤ Respect for the quality, character, and context of existing de-
velopment within these different areas of the town.
¤ Ensuring that new development enhances the desired character
of each of these areas.
¤ Discouraging new architecture that directly mimics or is deriv-
ative of the buildings of the historic downtown.
¤ Encouraging the retrofit or rehabilitation of existing buildings
to more closely comply with Town policies, standards, and
guidelines for high quality architecture and design.
¤ Consideration of the relationship of the built environment to
the qualities and context of the landscape and natural environ-
ment in which it is situated.
CC-P5.2 Require all new development to incorporate high quality site de-
sign, architecture, and planning so as to enhance the overall quali-
ty of the built environment in Truckee and create a visually inter-
esting and aesthetically pleasing town environment.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
AESTHETICS
TABLE 4.1-1 TRUCKEE GENERAL PLAN POLICIES PERTAINING TO
AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES (CONTINUED)
4.1-4
Policy or
Goal No. Goals and Policies
CC-P5.6 Regulate the size, quantity, location, and design of signs to main-
tain and enhance the visual appearance of the town.
CC-P5.8 For all new development in Truckee, consider how the integration
of trees and native landscaping can contribute to the overall quali-
ty of development-specific design and the town’s unique character.
CC-P5.9 Examine and pursue opportunities for planting trees and native
landscaping in public spaces to help enhance and preserve the
Town’s unique character.
Goal CC-12 Enhance the character of Truckee’s rural residential neighbor-
hoods.
CC-P12.1 Preserve the open space and natural features that contribute to the
character of rural residential neighborhoods through the clustered
development requirement and other strategies described in the
Open Space and Conservation Element.
CC-P12.2 Require new rural residential development projects to incorporate
materials, color schemes and architectural styles that allow it to
blend into the landscape and rural and mountain environment and
be less visible from adjacent roadways. The use of rustic and natu-
ral material such as stone and wood, and color palettes that reflect
the natural environment should be encouraged.
CC-P12.3 Create “soft” or feathered edges to rural residential neighborhoods
that transition into adjacent undeveloped open space areas. Soft
edges provide a gradual spatial shift from the built to the natural
environment at the urban fringe (e.g. a home with formal land-
scaping close to the residence that shifts to a more "natural land-
scape" and ultimately to undeveloped areas beyond) rather than
the "hard edge" or more abrupt transition created by buildings
edges or walls.
CC-P12.5 Retain an expansive open space and mountain landscape quality as
the dominant feature of Truckee’s rural residential neighbor-
hoods.
Goal CIR-6 Minimize potentially adverse impacts of transportation infrastructure
and parking facilities on Truckee’s community character and im-
portant environmental and cultural resources.
CIR-P6.1 Locate, construct, and maintain new roads and roadway im-
provements so as to prevent adverse impacts to water quality and
significant biological, scenic, and historic resources.
Goal COS-1 Preserve existing open space in Truckee, and increase the amount of
desired types of open space under permanent protection.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
AESTHETICS
TABLE 4.1-1 TRUCKEE GENERAL PLAN POLICIES PERTAINING TO
AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES (CONTINUED)
4.1-5
Policy or
Goal No. Goals and Policies
COS-P1.1 Acquire and preserve open space lands in Truckee, and purchase
development rights for the purpose of open space preservation,
with priority given to the following open space types:
¤ Regional parks.
¤ Neighborhood parks.
¤ Pristine open space and large blocks of undeveloped open
space.
¤ Open space corridors that provide connections between differ-
ent open space areas.
¤ Lands with a high level of scenic value.
COS-P1.5 Adhere to the following criteria for open space preserved through
direct actions of the Town, through open space and clustered de-
velopment requirements and incentives, and through the devel-
opment review process:
¤ Provide the maximum possible degree of community benefit,
as expressed through the Vision for Truckee and the guiding
principles, goals and policies of the General Plan.
¤ Preserve open space that, to the greatest possible extent, occurs
in large blocks and is contiguous and connected.
¤ Provide the greatest possible level of public access while re-
specting private property rights, sensitive habitat values, and
safety concerns.
¤ Provide maximum benefit in terms of habitat preservation.
¤ Enhance the overall character of Truckee as a scenic, mountain
community.
Goal COS-7 Protect and conserve managed resource open space for its productive
resource values, including timber harvesting and grazing uses, and for
its recreational, scenic, and biological values.
COS-P7.1 Work closely with the Forest Service and private property owners
to ensure that forest or rangeland areas are preserved, to the extent
feasible, for continued managed resource, recreation, scenic or
biological resource open space uses.
COS-P7.4 Coordinate with the California Department of Forestry in the
review of all timber harvesting and conversion plans relative to
potential impacts on visual, biological, and recreational resources.
Source: Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
AESTHETICS
4.1-6
development requirements related to aesthetics. Key among them are the
following chapters and sections related to the Town’s aesthetic and visual
resources. Chapter 18.24 of the Development Code (Truckee Municipal
Code, Title 18) contains design guidelines for attaining high quality develop-
ment that is sensitive to the Town’s unique character. However, these guide-
lines are not applicable to subdivisions or single-family development and
therefore would not be applicable to the proposed project.
Chapter 18.30, General Property Development and Use Standards, of the
Municipal Code contains development standards that are applicable to all new
or modified structures and uses, which must comply with the provisions of
the chapter prior to construction and operation.
i. Exterior Lighting Standards
Section 18.30.060 of the Development Code sets forth exterior lighting stand-
ards. Under this section, exterior lighting shall be:
¤ Architecturally integrated with the character of the structure(s).
¤ Directed downward and away from adjoining properties and public
rights-of-way.
¤ Energy-efficient, and fully shielded or recessed so that direct glare and re-
flections are confined, to the maximum extent feasible, within the
boundaries of the subject parcel.
¤ Completely turned off or significantly dimmed at the close of business
hours when the exterior lighting is not essential for security and safety,
and when located on parcels within nonresidential zoning districts.
In addition, under the exterior lighting standards:
¤ Permanently installed lighting shall not blink, flash, or be of unusually
high intensity or brightness. Lighting fixtures shall be appropriate in
height, intensity, and scale to the use they are serving.
¤ Security lighting shall be provided at all entrances/exits, except in the RR
and RS zoning districts.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
AESTHETICS
4.1-7
¤ Outdoor lighting fixtures shall be designed and installed so that no light
rays will be emitted by the fixture at angles above a horizontal plane pass-
ing through the lowest point of the fixture.
¤ Fixtures, poles, and foundations are subject to design criteria set forth in
Section 18.30.060(E).
ii. Hillside Development Standards
Chapter 18.36 of the Development Code establishes regulations for develop-
ment within hillside areas. Some of these regulations are to:
¤ Preserve and protect the views to and from hillside areas in order to
maintain the identity, image, and environmental quality of the Town.
¤ Ensure that development in the hillside areas is concentrated on the most
level portions of the site and is designed to fit the existing land forms.
¤ Preserve significant features of the natural topography, including swales,
canyons, knolls, ridgelines, and rock outcrops.
¤ Correlate intensity of development with the steepness of terrain in order
to minimize the impact of grading, unnecessary removal of vegetation,
land instability, and fire hazards.
iii. Subdivision Standards
Chapter 18.94 of the Development Code contains design guidelines for resi-
dential subdivisions. The primary objective of this chapter is to encourage
well-designed residential neighborhoods. The guidelines apply to all tentative
maps for residential projects, and these projects are subject to discretionary
review by the Town to determine whether the intent of the guidelines has
been attained.
Section 18.94.030 contains guidelines for context and continuity, including
guidelines related to the existing context and natural features, the develop-
ment of “neighborhoods,” street connectivity, fence design, and gated neigh-
borhood.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
AESTHETICS
4.1-8
Section 18.30.40 establishes site planning guidelines for the internal organiza-
tion of subdivisions. The intent of this section is to ensure that the relation-
ships between residential uses and to other on-site uses are attractive, and that
a visual variety is created along on-site streets. Site planning guidelines call
for the incorporation of natural amenities, grading that is sensitive to existing
landforms and topography, preservation of mature trees, incorporation of
snow storage, and roadways that prevent adverse impacts to water quality,
biological scenic, and historic resources.
iv. Sign Design Guidelines
Chapters 18.54, Signs, and 18.56, Sign Design Guidelines, provide design
guidelines to encourage signs that are not unnecessarily large or visually ob-
trusive, and include high-quality graphic design and materials.
B. Existing Conditions
This section describes the project site and its surroundings in terms of existing
visual character, scenic resources, scenic highways, and sources of light and
glare.
1. Visual Character
The project site is located at the eastern limit of the historic, mountain town
of Truckee. Prominent visual features of the regional landscape are described
below, along with the visual and aesthetic character of the project site.
a. Regional Setting
The Truckee/North Tahoe region has a visual landscape made up of rugged
mountain peaks, flat lake surfaces, and thickly forested slopes. The Town of
Truckee is located in the valley of the Truckee River, surrounded by the
peaks of the Sierra Nevada and Carson Mountain Ranges. The distinct
mountain ridgelines are high in scenic quality and visual interest, thickly for-
ested at lower elevations, and often snow-capped at their peaks.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
AESTHETICS
4.1-9
The Truckee River is the principal river in the area, and many of its streams
and tributaries contain water throughout the year. In contrast with the sur-
rounding mountains, the topography of the valley is more moderate, extend-
ing to the east and southeast of Truckee to form a landscape of open meadow,
rolling terrain, and forested lowlands. Vegetation found within the town and
its surrounding area includes Jeffrey Pine Forest and Great Basin Sage Scrub.
Great Basin Sage Scrub is interspersed with and adjacent to Jeffrey Pine Forest
and montane meadow areas. This plant community is dominated by shrubby
vegetation such as bitterbrush, sagebrush, and rabbitbrush, with occasional
trees interspersed throughout. Jeffrey Pine Forest is a tall, open forest domi-
nated by Jeffrey pine, ponderosa pine, and lodgepole pine. Plant species
know to occur or potentially occur in or associated with Jeffrey Pine Forest
include Carson Range rock-cress and Mountain lady’s slipper. Plant species
known to occur or potentially occur in or associated with rock outcrops or
openings in Great Basin sage scrub and bitterbrush include Donner Pass
buckwheat and starved daisy. Other plant species occurring in the town and
its vicinity include Donner Pass buckwheat, Oregon fireweed, Plumas ivesia,
and Tahoe yellow cress.
b. Landscape, Topography, and Visual Features of the Project Site
The project site, a forested area with meadows and wetlands, is approximately
1.6 miles east of Truckee's town center. Open views of the site are limited, as
the rolling/sloped terrain is largely covered with Jeffrey Pine Forest. The site
topography generally slopes gently downward to the northwest along two
ridges. Slopes are generally one to ten percent but with some isolated areas
exceeding 30 percent. Elevations on the site range from approximately 5,920
feet above mean sea level (MSL) in the northwest to 6,120 feet above MSL in
the southeast. Juniper Creek, a tributary of the Truckee River, flows through
the project site from east to west. In addition, the site supports both inter-
mittent and ephemeral drainages, and seasonal wetlands. Dominant plant
communities on the site include Jeffrey Pine Forest and Sagebrush Scrub.
The project site is generally undeveloped. The site was logged some years ago
and many, if not most, of the larger trees were removed. An approximately
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
AESTHETICS
4.1-10
7-acre area on the western edge of the project site was the location of a previ-
ous fire. The site has two identified cultural resource sites and a well-
developed network of unpaved roads and trails is distributed throughout the
site. This network extends into adjacent lands on all sides of the project site.
The project site is accessed by surrounding subdivision residents and experi-
ences year-round unauthorized use. In the winter, the site is used by cross-
country and backcountry skiers, snowshoers, and snowmobile users. In other
seasons the project site is used by hikers, mountain bikers, equestrians, and
off-road vehicle users. The only formal development on the project site is the
Liberty Energy – California Pacific Electric Company’s overhead high-power
transmission line and associated access road that spans the project site in a
southwest-northeast orientation for approximately 2,300 feet. In addition, a
well exists near the central portion of the project site on Assessor Parcel
Number 49-020-20.
The project site is primarily surrounded by developed single-family and rural
residential properties comprising full-time residents. These include large acre-
age properties located in unincorporated Nevada County outside the Town
limit, but within the Sphere of Influence (SOI), to the north, east, and south—
the Juniper Hills and Martis Peak residential subdivisions--and suburban sub-
divisions within the Town limit to the west of the project site collectively
referred to as “Glenshire” including the Glenshire, Devonshire, Cambridge
Estates, Elkhorn Ridge, and The Meadows subdivisions.
c. Scenic Resources & Vistas
Truckee’s unique natural environment is a valued community asset and a de-
fining feature of the Town. The Community Character Element of the Town
of Truckee 2025 General Plan states that Truckee’s landscape can be conceptu-
alized as a series of distinct terrain areas, defined both by topography and
vegetation. They include the high mountain peaks and ridges of the Sierra
Nevada and Carson Range that lie outside the Town limits but are visible
from many places within Truckee; the forested uplands lying within and bor-
dering the Town; meadowlands; and the valleys of the Truckee River and
Martis Creek watersheds. Figure 4.1-1 shows both Truckee’s landscape and
Way
Martis
Creek
Lake
Glensh
i
r
e
D
r
Alder Creek Rd
Joerger Dr
Pros
s
e
r
D
a
m
R
d
Bro
c
k
w
a
y
R
d
Al
d
e
r
D
r
Ski Slope Way
H
i
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
R
d
Silverfir Dr
Theline Dr
P
a
l
i
s
a
d
e
s
D
r
N
o
r
t
h
w
o
o
dsBlvd
Donner Pass Rd
Donner PassRd
Glen s h i r e D rive
D o r c heste
r
Wa y
§¨¦80
§¨¦80
§¨¦80
§¨¦80
267
267
89
89
Truckee
Riv
e
r
T r u c k e e R i v e r
D o n n e r L a k e
Prosser Lake
Proposed Sphere of Influence
County Boundary
Interstate or Highway
Railroad
Truckee Town Limits Scenic Corridor*
Scenic Vista
Prominent Slope, Ridge Line, Bluff Line or Hillside
Creek or Drainage
BocaRes.
* I-80 Scenic Corridor applies to north side of highway only in the Downtown area.
NORTH
FIGURE CC-1
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
2025 GENERAL PLAN
SCENIC RESOURCES
00.51 mile
Alder
Hill
Prosser
Hill
Boca
Hill
Airport
Flat
Schalle n b e r ge r R i d g e
Juniper
Flat
MARTIS
VALLEY
Bald
Mountain
Donner Ridge
Carpenter Valley
Euer Valley
Other Views
Vie
w
s
t
o
C
a
s
t
l
e
P
e
a
k
Views
U
p
a
n
d
D
o
w
n
Truck
e
e
R
i
v
e
r
Views toDonner Lake
Views toDonner Lake
View
s
t
o
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
e
a
k
,
Mt Ju
d
a
h
a
n
d
T
i
n
k
e
r
s
K
n
o
b
Views to Mt. Rose
Way
Martis
Creek
Lake
Glensh
i
r
e
D
r
Alder Creek Rd
Joerger Dr
Pros
s
e
r
D
a
m
R
d
Bro
c
k
w
a
y
R
d
Al
d
e
r
D
r
Ski Slope Way
Hi
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
R
d
Silverfir Dr
Theline Dr
P
a
l
i
s
a
d
e
s
D
r
N
o
r
t
h
w
o
o
dsBlvd
Donner Pass Rd
Donner PassRd
Glen s h i r e D rive
D o r c hester
Wa y
§¨¦80
§¨¦80
§¨¦80
§¨¦80
267
267
89
89
TruckeeRiv
e
r
T r u c k e e R i v e r
D o n n e r L a k e
Prosser Lake
Proposed Sphere of Influence
County Boundary
Interstate or Highway
Railroad
Truckee Town Limits Scenic Corridor*
Scenic Vista
Prominent Slope, Ridge Line, Bluff Line or Hillside
Creek or Drainage
BocaRes.
* I-80 Scenic Corridor applies to north side of highway only in the Downtown area.
NORTH
FIGURE CC-1
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
2025 GENERAL PLAN
SCENIC RESOURCES
00.51 mile
Alder
Hill
Prosser
Hill
Boca
Hill
Airport
Flat
S ch alle nb e r ger R i d g e
Juniper
Flat
MARTIS
VALLEY
Bald
Mountain
D o nner Ridg e
Carpenter Valley
Eue r V a lley
Other Views
Vie
w
s
t
o
C
a
s
t
l
e
P
e
a
k
Views
U
p
a
n
d
D
o
w
n
Truck
e
e
R
i
v
e
r
Views toDonner Lake
Views toDonner Lake
View
s
t
o
D
o
n
n
e
r
P
e
a
k
,
Mt Ju
d
a
h
a
n
d
T
i
n
k
e
r
s
K
n
o
b
Views to Mt. Rose
SCENIC RESOURCES IN TRUCKEE AREA
FIGURE 4.1-1
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
AESTHETICS
10 2 MilesNORTH
Project
Site
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
AESTHETICS
4.1-12
topography and the location of significant scenic resources, including scenic
vistas and open space areas, prominent slope exposures, ridge and bluff lines,
and designated scenic corridors. As shown on Figure 4.1-1, there are no Gen-
eral Plan-designated scenic corridors, scenic vistas, prominent slopes, ridge
lines, bluff lines, or hillsides on the project site. General Plan-designated sce-
nic vistas and prominent slopes, ridge lines, and bluff lines are visible to the
north and west of the site from vantage points within the project site’s Open
Space designation.
d. Scenic Corridors & Highways
Recognizing the scenic value of the landscape along the major highways in
and around Truckee, as well as the need to protect against the encroachment
of visually incompatible development and advertising signage that could im-
pair the scenic quality within roadway viewsheds, the Town of Truckee 2025
General Plan designates segments of Interstate 80 and State Route 89 as Scenic
Corridors. The California Scenic Highways Program does not identify any
Officially Designated State or County Scenic Highways in the vicinity of the
project site; however, two highway segments on Interstate 80 and State Route
89 are identified as Eligible State Scenic Highways.1 The project site is not
visible from either of these segments.
e. Existing Viewsheds
Viewsheds refer to the visual qualities of a geographical area that are defined
by the horizon, topography, and other natural features that give an area its
visual boundary and context, or by development that has become a promi-
nent visual component of the area. Public views are those which can be seen
from vantage points that are publicly accessible, such as streets, freeways,
parks, and vista points. These views are generally available to a greater num-
ber of persons than are private views. Private views are those views that can
be seen from vantage points located on private property. Private views are
1 California Department of Transportation, Scenic Highways Mapping Pro-
gram, “Nevada County,” http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/
index.htm, accessed on April 14, 2011.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
AESTHETICS
4.1-13
not necessarily considered to be impacted when interrupted by land uses on
adjacent blocks.
In the area surrounding the project site, the existing viewsheds are defined
primarily by the creek and meadowlands and the forested areas within and
surrounding the project site as well as the high mountain peaks and ridges of
the Sierra Nevada and Carson Range that are visible from the site.
Large trees and hills obstruct views from the site toward the north, east, and
south; private homes in the Glenshire subdivision 0.5 miles to the west are
generally not visible from the site. Additionally, there is limited visibility of
the project site from Glenshire Drive, the main access road leading to the
Glenshire neighborhood, and views are also obstructed from Martis Peak
Road, which runs to the northeast of the site. Therefore, the following six
viewpoints were identified due to the close proximity of the proposed project
to the adjacent residential and recreational land uses and the direct views of
the project site from these locations. These viewpoints are discussed in detail
below and the locations of these viewpoints are depicted in Figure 4.1-2.
These views are depicted as Views 1 through 6 in Figures 4.1-3 through 4.1-8.
i. Viewpoint 1: Martis Peak Road
As shown on Figure 4.1-3, this viewpoint is at the location of Martis Peak
Road. View 1a represents the Martis Peak Road/Glenshire Road/Whitehorse
Road intersection facing south where residents going to and from the Glen-
shire area travel daily. Views 1b, 1c, and 1d represent views that only resi-
dents of the project and of the Martis Peak Subdivision would see routinely.
View 1b is taken just a few feet south of this intersection and shows a longer
view of Martis Peak Road, which leads to the project’s main vehicular access
point. These views look south directly onto Martis Peak Road.
Views from this area include the trees that line Martis Peak Road to the east
and the west and the steel-pipe reinforced wooden fence lined with boulders
to the east of the road. View 1a shows a telephone pole on the east and corre-
sponding wires adjacent to Glenshire Road in the foreground and View 1b
TO WN OF TRU CKEECANYON SPRINGS ADMI NISTRA TIVE DRAFT EIRAESTHETICS
EXISTIN G AN D SURROUNDIN G LAN D USES
FIGUR E 3-4
Projec t Sit e Area
Source: Google Earth, June 2011.
Cambridge
Estates
Cambridge
Estates
The MeadowsThe Meadows
DevonshireDevonshire
I-80I-80I-80I-80
M
a
rt
i
s
Pe
a
k
R
o
ad
M
a
rt
i
s
Pe
a
k
R
o
ad
Glens
h
i
r
e
D
rive
Glens
h
i
r
e
D
rive
W h it eh o rs e Road
W h it eh o rs e Road
Tr
u
c
k
e
e
R
ive
r
T
r
u
c
ke
e
R
ive
r
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
Gl
e
n
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
Truckee River
Truckee River
.250 .5 MilesNORTH
Edin burgh
Drive
Edin burgh
Drive
Hig
h
P
o
w
e
r
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
L
i
n
e
Hig
h
P
o
w
e
r
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
L
i
n
e
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
AESTHETICS
VIEWPOINT LOCATION MAP
FIGURE 4.1-2
Project Site Area
Source: Google Earth, June 2011.
.250 .5 MilesNORTH
Viewpoint 1
Viewpoint 2
Viewpoint 3
Viewpoint 4
Viewpoint 5
Viewpoint 6
VIEWPOINT 1 MARTIS PEAK ROAD
FIGURE 4.1-3
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
AESTHETICS
Viewpoint 1a Martis Peak Road facing south from intersection with Glenshire Road
and Whitehorse Road.
Viewpoint 1c Project site main entrance facing west.
Viewpoint 1b Martis Peak Road facing south.
Viewpoint 1d Gated entrance to Martis Peak Subdivision facing south.
VIEWPOINT 2 OPEN SPACE FROM GLENSHIRE ROAD
FIGURE 4.1-4
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
AESTHETICS
Viewpoint 2a. View from Glenshire Road facing southeast.
Viewpoint 2c. Snow view near Glenshire Road facing northeast.
Viewpoint 2b. Non-snow view from Glenshire Road facing east.
Viewpoint 2d. Non-snow view near Glenshire Road facing northeast.
VIEWPOINT 3 WINCHESTER COURT
FIGURE 4.1-5
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
AESTHETICS
Viewpoint 3a. Non-snow view near Winchester Court facing southeast.
Viewpoint 3c. Non-snow view near Winchester Court facing northeast.
Viewpoint 3b. Snow view near Winchester Court facing southeast.
Viewpoint 3d. Snow view near Winchester Court facing northeast.
VIEWPOINT 4 EDINBURGH DRIVE
FIGURE 4.1-6
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
AESTHETICS
Viewpoint 4a. Non-snow view facing east from Edinburgh Drive.
Viewpoint 4c. Snow view facing north from Edinburgh Drive.
Viewpoint 4b. Snow view facing east from Edinburgh Drive.
Viewpoint 4d. Non-snow view facing north from Edinburgh Drive.
VIEWPOINT 5 BELFORD PLACE
FIGURE 4.1-7
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
AESTHETICS
Viewpoint 5a. View from Belford Place facing west.
Viewpoint 5c. View of Belford Place facing west from proposed open space buffer.
Viewpoint 5b. View between Edinburgh Drive and Belford Place facing east.
Viewpoint 5d. View of Belford Place facing west from proposed development site.
VIEWPOINT 6 OPEN SPACE FROM SOUTHEAST CORNER OF PROJECT SITE
FIGURE 4.1-8
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
AESTHETICS
Viewpoint 6a. View facing north from open space area in southwest portion off
project site.
Viewpoint 6c. View facing northwest from open space area in southwest portion off
project site.
Viewpoint 6b. View facing south from open space area in southwest portion off
project site.
Viewpoint 6d. View facing north from open space area in southwest portion off
project site.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
AESTHETICS
4.1-21
shows a no parking sign and no trespassing sign representing the entrance to
the private residential development maintained by the Martis Peak Home-
owners Association. View 1c shows the proposed main access point to the
project site and View 1d shows the gated access point to the Martis Peak Res-
idential Subdivision located in unincorporated Nevada County. The project’s
proposed mailbox cluster would be located at the same location as the mail-
boxes shown in View 1d.
ii. Viewpoint 2: Open Space from Glenshire Drive
The views shown on Viewpoint 2 were taken from the public turnout off of
Glenshire Road. Views from this area were selected because this area is high-
ly visible to those traveling on Glenshire Road and recreational users of the
open space, and due to the residential homes adjacent to the open space.
Views from these points are generally facing east towards the project site’s
western boundary, which is approximately 1,500 feet in the distance. These
views show the mountains outside the Town limits to the east. Views 2a and
2b show the meadow, creek, and trail in the foreground that link to the open
space on the project site, the forest that represents the project’s west bounda-
ry, and the mountains in the background. View 2a shows the relationship to
the residential development to the west of the project site and north of the
open space lands. View 2b shows the relationship of the residential develop-
ment to the west of the project site and north of the open space lands. Views
2c and 2d show a similar view of this open space in both snow and non-snow
conditions.
iii. Viewpoint 3: Winchester Court
As shown on Figure 4.1-5, the views from Views 3a and 3b were taken from
the vacant lots at the end of Winchester Court facing east and southeast, and
represent similar views in both snow and non-snow conditions. Views 3c and
3d were taken facing east and northeast and also represent snow and non-
snow conditions. Views 3a and 3b show the trees and rolling topography that
span an approximate 100- to 300-foot edge between the project’s western
boundary and the vacant lots on Winchester Court and Brighton Court to
the south. Views 3c and 3d show the meadowlands and creek to the east
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
AESTHETICS
4.1-22
through the trees at the end of Winchester Court. The project’s western
boundary is approximately 500 to 800 feet in the distance and no develop-
ment is proposed on the part of the project site that is visible from these
views. Views 3c and 3d also show the mountains in the background. View-
point 3 was selected to due to the residential homes in this area, which will
have views towards the project site.
iv. Viewpoint 4: Edinburgh Drive
As shown on Figure 4.1-6, views from the end of Edinburgh Drive show the
unauthorized trailhead that enters the project site, the dense forest, and the
rolling topography of the project site in both snow and non-snow conditions.
This viewpoint was selected due to the residential homes in this area, which
will have views towards the project site. Views 4a and 4b are facing east and
are representative of the limited views of the project site due to the trees on
the project site. While the emergency access point is proposed at this loca-
tion, no homes are proposed within approximately 300 feet of the project’s
western border at this point. Views 4c and 4d are facing slightly northeast
and show steep slopes and thick forest that lie between the homes at the end
of Edinburgh Drive and the nearest proposed home on the project site, which
would be approximately 300 feet away.
v. Viewpoint 5: Belford Place
Figure 4.1-7 represents four views take from and towards Belford Place. This
viewpoint was selected due to the residential homes in this area, which will
have views towards the project site. View 5a is taken from Belford Place and
shows the dense forest that lies between the homes on Belford Place and the
project’s western border. No development is proposed in this approximate
200 foot area. Views 5b, 5c, and 5d represent views from the project site fac-
ing Belford Place. Views 5b and 5c are taken from the wooded area that spans
the distance from Edinburgh Drive to Belford Place. The project would not
construct any homes in this area. View 5d is taken from the site of the near-
est proposed homes on the project site facing Belford Place and the dense for-
est that lies between the two in the foreground and the homes at the end of
Belford Place in the background.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
AESTHETICS
4.1-23
vi. Viewpoint 6: Open Space from Southeast Corner of Project Site
The views from Viewpoint 6 shown on Figure 4.1-8 were selected to repre-
sent the open space meadows along the project’s southeast corner and eastern
border. No homes are proposed in these areas. View 6a and 6c are facing
north and east from slightly different locations in the same area and show the
open space in the foreground, the forest in the middle ground, and the moun-
tains in the background. A portion of the unauthorized trail can be seen on
the right in this view. View 6b is facing south and shows the dense forest that
lies between the project sites southern border and the adjacent land in unin-
corporated Nevada County. View 6d is facing north and shows the seasonal
stream on the projects east side.
2. Light and Glare
Light pollution refers to all forms of unwanted light in the night sky around
and above us, including glare, light trespass, sky glow, and over-lighting.
Views of the night sky are an important part of the natural environment, par-
ticularly for a mountain community like Truckee. Excessive light and glare
can also be visually disruptive to humans and nocturnal animal species, and
often reflects an unnecessarily high level of energy consumption. Light pollu-
tion has the potential to become an issue of increasing concern as new devel-
opment contributes additional outdoor lighting installed for safety and other
reasons.
Currently, the principal source of light pollution in the vicinity of the project
site is development within the Town limit. Sky glow, a condition where
views of the night sky are obscured by excessive or poorly designed lighting,
is an issue in the Truckee region. The intensive and sprawling development
of the Reno/Sparks metropolitan area is a major source of sky glow in the
area.
Glare is mainly the result of the sun reflecting off surfaces such as glass in
building windows or in the windshields of vehicles, or metal roof-tops and
other light-colored surfaces. In a rural mountain community such as Truck-
ee, snow cover can be a source of glare during winter months. Trees or vege-
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
AESTHETICS
4.1-24
tative cover can serve to lessen the effects of glare by blocking or dampening
its brightness.
C. Standards of Significance
The proposed project would have a significant impact with regard to aesthet-
ics if it would:
¤ Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.
¤ Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees,
rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway.
¤ Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site
and its surroundings.
¤ Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area.
D. Impact Discussion
The following discussion provides an analysis of potential project and cumu-
lative aesthetic impacts that could occur as a result of buildout of the pro-
posed project.
1. Project Impacts
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.
In the area surrounding the project site, the existing viewsheds are defined
primarily by the creek and meadowlands and the forested areas within and
surrounding the project site as well as the high mountain peaks and ridges of
the Sierra Nevada and Carson Range that are visible from the site. These
high mountain peaks are identified as a scenic vista in the Town of Truckee
2025 General Plan. While the natural topography and vegetation (mixed co-
nifers and woodland vegetation) of the site and surrounding area limit the
open views to and from the site, these viewsheds could be potentially affected
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
AESTHETICS
4.1-25
by the development of the project. As discussed above, six key viewpoints
were identified that provide direct views of the project site by adjacent land
uses, both residential and recreational, and consequently could substantially
block the view of a scenic resource.
i. Viewpoint 1: Martis Peak Road
As shown on Figure 4.1-3, views of the meadows, creeks, and forested areas
on the project site would not be visible from this viewpoint. Since, due to the
natural topography, the access point to the project site is located further
down Martis Peak Road, travelers on Glenshire Road would not be able to
see the project’s main access point. Only the residents of the project and
those of the Martis Peak Subdivision would routinely see the main access
point to the project. There are no homes proposed at this location and the
proposed mailbox clusters would not substantially block the view of the for-
ests that line Martis Peak Road. The high mountain peaks and ridges of the
Sierra Nevada and Carson Range are not visible at this location. Therefore,
the project would not substantially block a scenic vista from this viewpoint
and impacts would be less than significant.
ii. Viewpoint 2: Open Space from Glenshire Drive
As shown on Figure 4.1-4, views of the meadows, creeks, and forested areas
on the project site, as well as the high mountain peaks and ridges of the Sierra
Nevada and Carson Range can be seen from this viewpoint. The proposed
homes would be located approximately 1,500 feet from this public turnout on
Glenshire Road and approximately 500 to 800 feet away from the nearest ex-
isting homes in the Glenshire area on the project’s western border and would
not block views of the identified scenic vistas or resources from this location.
The project does not propose any development of the open space area that
links to the open space land that lies between Glenshire Road and the pro-
ject’s western border; therefore, recreational users would not experience
blocked views of the scenic resources in the vicinity of the project. While the
project would be visible from this viewpoint, the project would not substan-
tially block a scenic vista from this viewpoint and impacts would be less than
significant.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
AESTHETICS
4.1-26
iii. Viewpoint 3: Winchester Court
As shown on Figure 4.1-5, views from this viewpoint include the forest that
makes up the project’s western border, some seasonal drainage areas and the
high mountain peaks and ridges of the Sierra Nevada and Carson Range. The
trees and rolling topography that span an approximate 100- to 300-foot edge
between the project’s western boundary and the vacant lots on Winchester
Court and Brighton Court to the south would remain and no homes are pro-
posed in this location. The views of the open space areas to the east would
also remain as no development is proposed on this portion of the project site.
While the future residents at the end of Winchester Court and Brighton
Court would likely be able to see the project through the trees and across the
open meadow to the east and northeast, this development would be approxi-
mately 800 feet away and would not block the views of any of the scenic re-
sources in the project vicinity. While the project would be visible from this
viewpoint, the project would not substantially block a scenic vista from this
viewpoint and impacts would be less than significant.
iv. Viewpoint 4: Edinburgh Drive
As shown on Figure 4.1-6, views from this viewpoint show the dense forest
and the rolling topography of the project site. While the emergency access
point is proposed at this location, no homes are proposed within approxi-
mately 300 feet of the project’s western border at this point. Therefore, the
project would not substantially block a scenic vista from this viewpoint and
impacts would be less than significant.
v. Viewpoint 5: Belford Place
As shown on Figure 4.1-7 views of the forest that lies between the homes on
Belford Place and the project’s western border are visible. No development is
proposed in this approximately 200 foot area. While the project would likely
be visible through the trees, the project would not substantially block a scenic
vista from this viewpoint and impacts would be less than significant.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
AESTHETICS
4.1-27
vi. Viewpoint 6: Open Space from Southeast Corner of Project Site
As shown on Figure 4.1-8, views of the meadows, forests, and the high moun-
tain peaks and ridges of the Sierra Nevada and Carson Range are visible from
the open space portions of the project site. While these views only represent
the southwest corner of the project site, the same can generally be said for all
the open space area that spans the project site. No homes are proposed in
these areas, therefore users of the publically accessible trails network and
open space would not be subject to blocked views of scenic resources. While
the project would be visible from the open space areas, the project would not
substantially block a scenic vista from this viewpoint or other open space
viewpoints and impacts would be less than significant.
In summary, the development of the proposed project would not substantial-
ly block the view of the on-site or surrounding forests, meadowlands, inter-
mittent and ephemeral drainages, and seasonal wetlands, and the high moun-
tain peaks and ridges of the Sierra Nevada and Carson Range that combined
make up Truckee’s unique natural environment. Further, the project’s pro-
posed development would occur beneath the existing on-site tree canopy and
would not block the views of the on-site scenic resources from any surround-
ing scenic vistas. Therefore, the development of the proposed project would
not have a substantial adverse effect on views to or from a scenic vista and
impacts would be less than significant.
b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees,
rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway.
The Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan designates segments of Interstate 80
and State Route 89 as Scenic Corridors and the California Scenic Highways
Program has identified segments of Interstate 80 and State Route 89 as Eligible
State Scenic Highways.2 However, the project site is not visible from either
of these highway segments. The project site is approximately 2 miles south of
Interstate 80 and approximately 5 miles east of State Route 89. Therefore,
2 California Department of Transportation, Scenic Highways Mapping Pro-
gram, “Nevada County,” http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/
index.htm, accessed on April 14, 2011.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
AESTHETICS
4.1-28
impacts to scenic resources observable from a State Scenic Highway would be
less than significant with the development of the project.
c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site
and its surroundings.
This analysis is based on the project’s proposed site plan and the Draft Design
Guidelines prepared for the project by the applicant. The Draft Design
Guidelines are included in Appendix C of this Draft EIR.
The project would be organized to meet the Rural Suburban Clusters stand-
ards identified in General Plan Table LU-7, Clustered Development Types
and Applicable Land Use Designations Rural Suburban Clusters are described
as groupings of 10 to 30 dwellings separated by connected open space areas or
greenways on Residential (0.5 to 1 units/acre) land use designations peripheral
to the Town core, but generally not on sites within the rural fringe. The pro-
ject includes 185 residential lots to be developed on land designated as RES
(Residential) 0.5 to 1 du/acre. While the project site abuts the Town Limit to
the east, residential development is present in the Town’s SOI to the north,
east, and south. The project would be developed in eight phases ranging in 16
to 37 lot groupings per phase, separated by a network of connected open
space areas and a 4.5-mile publicly accessible trail network comprising 2-foot-
wide soft-surface earthen trails and 12-foot-wide gravel trails. The residential
lots would be located to the north and south of the proposed public open
space. Housing lots would connect with the project’s 4.5-mile publicly acces-
sible trail system and surrounding open space while providing setback buffers
between future homes and environmentally-sensitive areas such as wetlands
and ephemeral drainages. In addition, the proposed trail system and open
space would connect to existing trails and open space areas adjacent to the
project site. The project’s massing, form, and scale are proposed to be low on
the landscape and building heights would be limited to 35 feet. The project
includes 100-foot minimum setbacks along the westerly border near the area
of Edinburgh Drive and the northwest corner of the project site.
The project includes a 176-acre open space area, which would be permanently
reserved by protective conservation easement. The project’s proposed dedi-
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
AESTHETICS
4.1-29
cated public open space would exceed the 50 percent minimum required by
Town standard by 69.67 acres or 65.4 percent.
While the project would require the removal of native vegetation, including
specimen trees, the project’s Draft Design Guidelines include the incorpora-
tion of existing trees and vegetation into the project design. The landscaping
proposed in the Draft Design Guidelines encourages the use of native, sus-
tainable landscaping indigenous to the Truckee region on individual lots. The
landscaping has been designed to deflect wind, moderate heat and glare im-
pacts, muffle noise, reduce soil erosion, conserve water, reduce risks associat-
ed with wildfire hazards, promote trail safety, and restore damaged areas.
The project’s proposed 176-acre public open space area, which includes native
habitat, pebble meadows, would not be physically altered except for the seg-
ment of road that would connect the two sections of proposed residential
development. The project includes replanting native vegetation on the ap-
proximately 7-acre portion of the project site that was the location of a previ-
ous fire and includes planting to restore summer range in upland areas dam-
aged by unauthorized public uses of the property (e.g. off-road vehicle and
motorcycle). Landscaping would include adequate defensible space and fire
resistant native and adapted species, as well as the use of mulch to prevent
erosion on bare soil. Landscaping would be in scale with adjacent residences
and of appropriate size at maturity.
The project’s street and trail signage would comply with the Town’s sign re-
quirements.3 The proposed signage would direct traffic, identify speed limits,
and provide street names, trail access points, permitted trail uses, and trail
distance. In addition, trail signage would provide users with educational in-
formation regarding the qualities of the natural characteristics of the project
site--both biological and ecological.
3 Town of Truckee Municipal Code, Title 18, Development Code, Chapter
18.56, Sign Design Guidelines.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
AESTHETICS
4.1-30
The Draft Design Guidelines establish a consistent design theme, break-up the
massing of homes throughout the project site, and complement the existing
rural-residential character of nearby development. In general, the Draft De-
sign Guidelines identify that the primary colors of the project would blend
with the native landscape (e.g. soil, rock, trees) and individual house design
would consider the natural topography, sunlight exposure, and existing vege-
tation. Other on-site structures, such as fences and retaining walls, would be
constructed of natural materials (e.g., stone, architectural steel, wood, timber)
and either would be left natural to weather or treated and stained to match
adjacent buildings.
The project includes four vehicular bridges. As described in Chapter 3, Pro-
ject Description, the bridges would be built per Town standards and would be
constructed of steel and concrete decking supported by two concrete abut-
ments. As shown in Figure 3-9, Circulation Map, all four bridges would be
located within the project site along on-site roadways and none of the bridges
would be visible from off-site locations. The height of the bridges would be
designed to be low profile, with the safety rail/guardrail along the bridges
having a minimum height of 42 inches for safety purposes. The safety
rail/guardrails would be constructed with a combination of wood and steel
materials. Bridge undercrossing heights would be sufficient to allow wildlife
to cross underneath, but the bridges would not be elevated such that they
would significantly affect on-site views of natural and scenic elements. The
wood, steel, and concrete materials would be visually compatible with the
materials for other on-site structures under the Design Guidelines, which in-
clude architectural steel as an acceptable natural material.
Grading for infrastructure and roadways would be balanced on site. As the
project’s phases are built out, temporary stockpiles would be used during
grading and filling activities. The project would develop the grades and topo-
graphic forms needed to achieve necessary grades for siting buildings in rela-
tionship to utility extensions, roads, pedestrian areas, man-made or natural
water features and channels. Mass pad grading for future homes is not pro-
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
AESTHETICS
4.1-31
posed. Grading for future homes and grading operations would be carefully
managed to blend into adjacent non-graded areas and protect existing trees.
The project would include the installation of on-site, underground infrastruc-
ture for natural gas, electricity, water, sewer, telephone and cable, and off-site,
underground improvements to the Truckee-Donner Public Utilities District
(water) network. Infrastructure improvements would comprise approximate-
ly 2,600 linear feet of new off-site water mains. As shown on Figure 3-11 in
Chapter 3 of this Draft EIR, the new 10-inch water main would be construct-
ed within the existing roadway rights-of-way and public utilities easements
and would not substantially alter the visual qualities of these areas.
As discussed above, views of the high mountain peaks and ridges of the Sierra
Nevada and Carson Range that are visible from the project site would not be
obstructed as a result of project build-out. The proposed residential lots
would be sited under the existing tree canopy and would not be developed on
General Plan-designated hillsides, prominent slope exposures, ridges, or bluff
lines. Although tree removal would occur with the eventual construction of
homes, the tree removal would not affect the overall tree canopy and there-
fore no views of the project site from high mountain peaks and ridges would
be adversely impacted.
As identified in Table 4.1-1 above, the Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan has
10 goals and 26 policies to protect and enhance the visual character of the
Town and surrounding areas that are applicable to the proposed project. Ta-
ble 4.10-1 in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, provides a detailed policy
consistency analysis for each of the goals and policies that are relevant to the
projects. As detailed in the preceding discussion and shown in Table 4.10-1,
the project would be consistent with the applicable goals and policies associ-
ated with aesthetics in the Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan.
In summary, while the project would result in a change in the existing on-site
conditions, it would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
AESTHETICS
4.1-32
quality of the site and its surroundings. Accordingly, impacts to visual char-
acter as a result of project build-out would be less than significant.
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area.
The project site is currently undeveloped and buildout of the project would
add potential sources of light pollution. The principal source of light added
to the site as the project is built out would be exterior lighting affixed to
homes in on the project site. The project does not include the installation of
street lighting. Glass and metal used for building windows, skylights, roofing
materials, and car windshields are reflective surfaces that could potentially
generate glare on-site.
The Draft Design Guidelines that have been developed for the project are
intended to complement and support Truckee Development Code and con-
tain several items that would reduce or eliminate the effects of light pollution
associated with the project. The Draft Design Guidelines would prevent
over-lighting by requiring that the source, intensity, and type of exterior
lighting be appropriate for the lighting needs and that all on-site lighting be
low-level illumination and shielded to reduce light spill or glare.
The Draft Design Guidelines also include measures to reduce and control
glare associated with the project. Snow on the ground during winter months
is a natural source of glare in the Truckee/North Tahoe region, while new,
paved roads would add potential sources of glare to the site due to the reflec-
tion of light, such as sunlight and vehicle headlights, off pavement. The Draft
Design Guidelines include landscaping that moderates the effects glare; re-
quires the use of non-reflective roofing materials and subdued colors; and re-
quires that skylights and solar panels be integrated into the design of residenc-
es so as to screen reflections, ensuring glare is not visible wherever possible.
Glare from reflecting sunlight year-round or from snow-covered surfaces dur-
ing winter months would be moderated by the use of non-reflective roofing
materials and subdued colors.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
AESTHETICS
4.1-33
The Truckee Development Code requires that exterior lighting be shielded to
minimize the impacts of lighting, and that lighting intensity be minimized.
Compliance with the Truckee Development Code, as well as with proposed
Draft Design Guidelines, would ensure that light pollution and glare would
be minimized to the maximum extent practicable, and as such, associated im-
pacts from buildout of the proposed project would be less than significant.
2. Cumulative Impacts
This section analyzes potential impacts to aesthetics that could occur from a
combination of the project with the Town buildout identified in the Town of
Truckee 2025 General Plan and reasonably foreseeable projects in the sur-
rounding area. The geographic scope of this analysis is taken as the Town of
Truckee SOI, as defined in the Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan and reason-
ably foreseeable projects in the surrounding area. Therefore, a cumulative
impact would be considered significant if, taken together with past, present,
and reasonably foreseeable projects in the Town of Truckee SOI and the Boca
Quarry project in Nevada County, the project would contribute to an ad-
verse effect on a designated scenic vista, the degradation of the view from a
scenic highway, exposure of people on- or off-site to substantial light or glare,
or if it would result in a substantial degradation of the visual quality or char-
acter of the project site and its surroundings.
There are no reasonably foreseeable projects in the vicinity of the project site.
The project site is primarily surrounded by developed single-family and rural
residential properties. The Glenshire area to the west of the site is within the
RES (Residential) 1-2 du/acre (dwelling unit per acre or du/acre) Town of
Truckee 2025 General Plan land use designation and includes parcels zoned
RS-X (Residential Single-Family – No Further Subdivision), RS—1.0 (Resi-
dential Single-Family – 1 du/acre), RR-X (Rural Residential – Built-out), REC
(Recreation), and PF (Public Facilities). The 362-acre parcel adjacent to the
eastern edge of the project site and the 320-acre parcel adjacent to the north-
ern edge of the project site in unincorporated Nevada County are designated
PD (Planned Development) under the Nevada County General Plan and zoned
IDR (Interim Development Reserve). South of the proposed project site are
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
AESTHETICS
4.1-34
20+-acre lots in unincorporated Nevada County zoned AG (General Agricul-
ture) and designated RUR-20 (Rural; 20-acre minimum parcel size) under the
Nevada County General Plan. While some of the surrounding properties have
the potential to be further developed, no such development is planned at this
time. Therefore, the project combined with the other projects proposed in
the Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan would not result in a cumulative im-
pact to views and the visual character of the Town. As a result, cumulative
impacts with respect to scenic views and existing visual character would also
be considered less than significant and the project’s incremental contribution
to cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
E. Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Project and cumulative impacts related to aesthetics would be less than signifi-
cant and no mitigation measures are warranted.
4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
4.2-1
This section discusses agricultural and forest resources in the vicinity of the
project site, and evaluates the potential for adverse impacts to those resources
as a result of buildout of the project. The following evaluation assesses farm-
land and forestland conversion, Williamson Act contracts, and changes in the
physical environment that could contribute to farmland and forestland con-
version.
A. Regulatory Framework
This section summarizes key State and local regulations, policies and pro-
grams pertaining to agriculture and forestry in the vicinity of the project site.
1. Federal Regulations
There are no federal regulations pertaining to agriculture and forestry that
apply to this project.
2. State Regulations
a. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
Within the California Natural Resources Agency, the State Department of
Conservation provides services and information that promote informed land-
use decisions and sound management of the State’s natural resources. The
Department manages the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
(FMMP), which supports agriculture throughout California by developing
maps and statistical data for analyzing land use impacts to farmland. FMMP
rates the production potential of agricultural land according to the following
classifications:
¤ Prime Farmland has the best combination of physical and chemical fea-
tures able to sustain long-term agricultural production. Prime Farmland
has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to pro-
duce sustained high yields. Land must have been used for irrigated agri-
culture production at some time during the four years prior to the map-
ping date.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
4.2-2
¤ Farmland of Statewide Importance is similar to Prime Farmland but
with minor shortcomings, such as steeper slopes or less ability to store
soil moisture. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural pro-
duction at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.
¤ Unique Farmland consists of lesser quality soils used for the production
of the state’s leading agricultural crops. This land is usually irrigated, but
may include non-irrigated orchards or vineyards as found in some climat-
ic zones in California. Land must have been cropped at some time dur-
ing the four years prior to the mapping date.
¤ Grazing Land is the land on which the existing vegetation is suited to
the grazing of livestock.
¤ Urban and Built-Up Land is occupied by structures with a building den-
sity of at least 1 unit to 1.5 acres, or approximately six structures to a
10-acre parcel. Common examples include residential, industrial, com-
mercial, institutional facilities, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary
landfills, sewage treatment, and water control structures.
¤ Other Land is land not included in any other mapping category. Com-
mon examples include low density rural developments, brush, timber,
wetlands, riparian areas not suitable for livestock grazing, confined live-
stock, poultry, aquaculture facilities, and strip mines. Vacant and nonag-
ricultural land surrounded on all sides by urban development and greater
than 40 acres is mapped as other land.
¤ Water is used to describe perennial water bodies with an extent of at least
40 acres.
b. Williamson Act
The California Land Conservation Act, better known as the Williamson Act,
preserves agricultural and open space lands through property tax incentives
and voluntary restrictive use contracts administered by the County under
State regulations. Private landowners voluntarily restrict their land to agri-
cultural and compatible open space uses under minimum 10-year rolling term
contracts, with counties and cities also acting voluntarily. In return, restrict-
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
4.2-3
ed parcels are assessed for property tax purposes at a rate consistent with their
actual use, rather than potential market value.1 Local governments receive an
annual subvention of forgone property tax revenues from the State via the
Open Space Subvention Act of 1971.
c. Z’Berg-Nejedly Forest Practice Act
The 1973 Z’Berg-Nejedly Forest Practice Act (FPA) is the primary governing
statute on matters related to forestry in the State of California. The FPA re-
quires an owner of timberland who wishes to harvest timber for commercial
purposes to submit one of several types of timber harvest plans, depending on
the nature of the operation and the type of landowner involved, to the Cali-
fornia Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) for its review and
approval.
d. Timberland Productivity Act
California also has enacted the 1976 Timberland Productivity Act (TPA),
which establishes a special zoning designation for commercial timberland that
restricts the use of such land to timberland production and compatible uses
and which offers certain tax advantages.
e. California Forest Practice Rules
The purpose of the Forest Practice Rules is to implement the provisions of
the Z'berg-Nejedly FPA in a manner consistent with other laws, including
but not limited to, the Timberland Productivity Act, the California Envi-
ronmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Porter Cologne Water Quality Act, and
the California Endangered Species Act. The California Forest Practice Rules
protect the forest and associated resources on non-federal lands from deple-
tion and degradation through specific rules applicable to timber harvest plan-
ning and operations. These detailed rules apply whenever forest products are
sold, bartered, exchanged, or traded.
1 California Department of Conservation, California Land Conservation
(Williamson) Act Status Report, August, 2002, page 1.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
4.2-4
3. Local Regulations
a. Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan
The Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan includes goals and policies that relate
to resource open space for its productive resource values, including timber
harvesting and grazing uses. Table 4.2-1 lists these goals and policies.
TABLE 4.2-1 TRUCKEE GENERAL PLAN POLICIES PERTAINING TO
AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
Policy or
Goal No. Goals and Policies
Goal COS-7 Protect and conserve managed resource open space for its productive
resource values, including timber harvesting and grazing uses, and for
its recreational, scenic, and biological values.
COS-P7.1 Work closely with the Forest Service and private property owners
to ensure that forest or rangeland areas are preserved, to the extent
feasible, for continued managed resource, recreation, scenic or
biological resource open space uses.
COS-P7.3 Require a Conditional Use Permit for any proposed conversion of
timberland to an alternate use not associated with an approved
development project.
COS-P7.4 Coordinate with the California Department of Forestry in the
review of all timber harvesting and conversion plans relative to
potential impacts on visual, biological, and recreational resources.
Source: Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan.
B. Existing Conditions
1. Agriculture
The Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan establishes several categories of open
space, including Managed Resource Areas, which are defined as land under
public or private ownership where uses focus on the land’s resource values
from activities such as cattle grazing, forestry, or mineral extraction. Areas of
rangeland vegetation in and around Truckee generally provide the best poten-
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
4.2-5
tial for agricultural uses; however, there is no active grazing taking place in
Truckee today.2
The project site itself is not in agricultural use and does not contain any
Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance
identified on the 2008 FMMP map of Important Farmland in California.3
Additionally, there are no Williamson Act contracts in force in eastern Neva-
da County, including on the project site or in its general vicinity.4
The area directly to the south of the project site in unincorporated Nevada
County has 20± acres zoned AG (General Agriculture)5 and designated RUR-
20 (Rural: 20-acre minimum parcel size) under the Nevada County General
Plan. This area is comprised of the Juniper Hills subdivision and is not cur-
rently in use for the production of any crops.
2. Forestry
The Truckee/North Tahoe region contains some important areas of protect-
ed forest land, including Mount Rose Wilderness and Donner Memorial State
Park. However, there are no protected forest lands on project site or imme-
diately adjacent to it. There are no commercial forestry operations in the
Truckee area today, although some timber harvesting for forest management
does occur. 6 The project site itself is currently undeveloped and dominant
plant communities on the site include Jeffrey Pine Forest and Sagebrush
Scrub.
2 Town of Truckee General Plan 2025, page 7-12.
3 California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping & Monitoring
Program, "County PDF Maps," http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/
Index.aspx, accessed on April 22, 2011.
4 California Department of Conservation, "Williamson Act Program,"
http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/lca/Pages/Index.aspx, accessed on April 22,
2011.
5 Nevada County, "County Zoning Maps," http://mynevadacounty.com/
gis/index.cfm?ccs=629&cs=1119, accessed on April 22, 2011.
6 Town of Truckee General Plan 2025, page 7-12.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
4.2-6
C. Standards of Significance
The proposed project would have a significant impact with regard to agricul-
tural and forest resources if it would:
¤ Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use.
¤ Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract.
¤ Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, tim-
berland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production.
¤ Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest
use.
¤ Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their lo-
cation or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-
agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.
D. Impact Discussion
The following discussion provides an analysis of potential project and cumu-
lative impacts to agricultural and forest resources that could occur as a result
of buildout of the proposed project.
1. Project Impacts
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use.
As there is no Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance on or near the project site, buildout of the project would not re-
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
4.2-7
sult in conversion of important farmland identified under the FMMP, and
therefore there would be no impact with respect to this criterion.
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract.
The project site is not zoned for agricultural use. A central portion of the
project site is zoned Open Space in recognition of a wildlife migration corri-
dor, and the remainder of the site is zoned for residential use. Additionally,
there are no Williamson Act contracts binding on the project site or adjacent
lands. Therefore, implementation of the project would not conflict with zon-
ing for agricultural uses or with Williamson Act contracts and as such there
would be no impact.
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, tim-
berland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production.
The project site is not zoned for forestry or Timberland Production and im-
plementation of the project would not require changes to existing zoning for
the site. As such, there would be no impact related to zoning of forest land or
timberland.
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest
use.
The project site is primarily comprised of Jeffrey Pine Forest and Sagebrush
Scrub, some of which would be removed with buildout of the project. As
shown in Figure 3-5 in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Draft EIR, a
central portion of the project site along the north fork of Juniper Creek
would be preserved in its current undeveloped state as open space in recogni-
tion of the wildlife migration corridor. Overall, the 176.17 acres of public
open space on the project site would be permanently reserved by protective
conservation easement or dedication to the Town of Truckee/Truckee Don-
ner Land Trust. Further, as shown on Figure 3-6, the project includes re-
planting native vegetation on the approximately seven-acre portion of the
project site that was the location of a previous fire. Jeffery Pine saplings will
be clustered and spacing will be varied for a natural appearance at approxi-
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
4.2-8
mately 35 feet apart. The more densely forested southern portion of the site
would also remain undeveloped. Residential development proposed as part of
the project would be concentrated in the portions of the project site currently
zoned RS-1.0, Single-Family Residential, and designated for residential use at
0.5 to 1.0 dwelling units per acre (du/acre) in the Town of Truckee 2025 Gen-
eral Plan.
Although the project is not located in a Timberland Production Zone (TPZ),
under Section 4526 of the California Public Resources Code the project site is
considered timberland because it is capable of and available for commercial
production of lumber or other commercial forest crops.7 However, pursuant
to Section 1104.2 of the California Forest Practice Rules, the project would be
exempt from the State requirement for a Timberland Conversion Permit on
the condition that the Truckee Town Council approves the proposed subdi-
vision map and grants the use permits required for the project.
In compliance with Section 1034 of the California Forest Practice Rules, a
Timber Harvesting Plan (THP) would be prepared prior to the issuance build-
ing permits. The THP would describe the boundaries, conditions, and own-
ership of the land to be cleared for project buildout. Additionally, a Notice
of Exemption from Timberland Conversion Permit for Subdivision would be
filed with the Director of Forestry and Fire Protection before site clearing
begins and before the THP is submitted, as required under the California
Forest Practice Rules.
Therefore, as the project does not conflict with existing zoning of forest land
and as the project would comply with the California Public Resources Code
and Forest Practice Rules pertaining to conversion of timberland, buildout of
7 According to the California Public Resources Code, "Timberland" is land,
other than land owned by the federal government and land designated by the board as
experimental forest land, which is available for, and capable of, growing a crop of trees
of any commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest products, includ-
ing Christmas trees. Commercial species shall be determined by the board on a dis-
trict basis after consultation with the district committees and others.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
4.2-9
the project would result in a less-than-significant impact with respect to tim-
berland conversion.
e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their
location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-
agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.
As discussed above, land adjacent to the project site immediately to the south
in unincorporated Nevada County is not currently in agricultural produc-
tion. The proposed project would result in the construction of residences on
the project site; however, buildout of the project would not create adverse
impacts which could trigger conversion of adjacent land zoned General Agri-
culture to non-agricultural use. Additional noise, traffic, and human activity
on the project site would be sufficiently separated from the adjacent lands
zoned General Agriculture given the open space buffer at the south of the
project site (shown on Figure 3-5) and the distance between the proposed res-
idential development and adjacent farmland.
As discussed above, there are no commercial forestry operations in the
Truckee area and land surrounding the project site is not currently used for
timber harvesting. Buildout of the project would, therefore, not affect ongo-
ing forestry and timberland harvesting activities. As such, overall, buildout of
the project would have a less-than-significant impact regarding the conversion
of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest
use.
2. Cumulative Impacts
This section analyzes potential impacts to agricultural and forest resources
that could occur from a combination of the project with the Town buildout
identified in the Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan and reasonably foreseea-
ble projects in the surrounding area. The geographic scope of this analysis is
taken as the Town of Truckee sphere of influence (SOI), as defined in the
Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan and reasonably foreseeable projects in the
surrounding area. Therefore, a cumulative impact would be considered signif-
icant if, taken together with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
4.2-10
in the Town of Truckee SOI and other reasonably foreseeable projects in the
surrounding area, it would result in the conversion of farmland of concern to
non-agricultural use, the conversion of forest land to non-forest use, a conflict
with existing zoning for agricultural or forest use, a conflict with a William-
son Act contract, or otherwise involve changes in the existing environment
which could cause the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or for-
est land to non-forest use.
As described above, buildout of the project would not conflict with existing
zoning for either agricultural or forest use or with a Williamson Act contract.
Therefore, development on the project site would not cause or contribute to a
cumulative impact related to conflict with existing zoning or Williamson Act
contracts. Project buildout would also not cause the conversion of agricul-
tural land on or adjacent to the project site to non-agricultural uses, and there-
fore would not result in an associated cumulative impact.
As described in Chapter 4, Environmental Evaluation, of this Draft EIR, the
Boca Quarry Expansion project in Nevada County, when considered with
the project and the Town buildout of the Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan
could result in cumulative environmental impacts. However, the Boca Quar-
ry Expansion project site has no important Farmlands designations and there
are no agricultural operations in the vicinity of the Boca Quarry site. Fur-
thermore, the Boca Quarry site is not within a Timberland Production Zone
possibly due to the lack of substantial timber resources on-site. The Boca
Quarry site is however zoned for Mineral Extraction, and is a viable aggregate
resource for the Eastern Nevada County.8
Additionally, the Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan contains policies which
protect forest resources, including those on and adjacent to the project site.
These policies, listed above on Table 4.2-1, include Policy P7.1, which re-
quires the Town to work with the Forest Service and private property hold-
8 Nevada County California Initial Study for the Boca Quarry Expansion
Project prepared by Tod Herman, Senior Planner, County of Nevada, on December
29, 2010.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
4.2-11
ers to preserve forest land; Policy P7.3, which mandates a Conditional Use
Permit for any proposed conversion of timberland to alternative uses not
associated with an approved project; and Policy P7.4, which call for coordina-
tion and cooperation with the California Department of Forestry in review
of timber harvesting and conversion plans. Continued implementation of
Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan Policies related to forestry would ensure
that cumulative impacts associated with the conversion of forest land to non-
forest use would be less than significant.
Overall, cumulative impacts to agricultural and forest resources from the
buildout of the proposed project in combination with other past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable projects in the Truckee SOI would be less than signifi-
cant.
E. Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Project and cumulative impacts related to agriculture and forest resources
would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are warranted.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
4.2-12
4.3 AIR QUALITY
4.3-1
This section has been prepared using methodologies and assumptions recom-
mended in the air quality impact assessment guidelines of the Northern Sierra
Air Quality Management District (NSAQMD).1 In keeping with these guide-
lines, this section describes existing air quality in Truckee and the Nevada
County Area, impacts of future traffic on project related vehicular emissions
that have regional effects, impacts from project construction emissions, and
other effects of the project related to air quality. Mitigation measures to re-
duce or eliminate potentially significant air quality impacts are identified,
where appropriate.
A. Regulatory Framework
Both the State and federal governments have established health-based Ambi-
ent Air Quality Standards for six air pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO),
ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), lead (Pb), and sus-
pended particulate matter (PM). These are the most prevalent air pollutants
and have extensive documented health effects, and are commonly referred to
as “criteria air pollutants.” Unlike air toxics, all criteria pollutants share three
regulatory characteristics: 1) a specified compound, 2) a regulated maximum
allowable concentration, and 3) a specified time period of exposure. In addi-
tion, the State has set standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride,
and visibility reducing particles. These standards are designed to protect the
health and welfare of the populace with a reasonable margin of safety.
At the federal level, EPA has been charged with implementing national air
quality programs. EPA’s air quality mandates are drawn primarily from the
Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA), which was enacted in 1963. The FCAA was
amended in 1970, 1977, and 1990.
1 Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District, 2009. Guidelines for As-
sessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts of Land Use Projects.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
AIR QUALITY
4.3-2
1. Federal Laws and Regulations
The FCAA required EPA to establish primary and secondary National Am-
bient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and required each state to prepare an
air quality control plan referred to as a State Implement Plan (SIP). The Fed-
eral Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (FCAAA) added requirements for
states with nonattainment areas to revise their SIPs to incorporate additional
control measures to reduce air pollution. The SIP is periodically modified to
reflect the latest emissions inventories, planning documents, and rules and
regulations of the air basins as reported by their jurisdictional agencies. EPA
has the responsibility to review all state SIPs to determine conformity with
the mandates of the FCAAA and determine if implementation will achieve
air quality goals. If the EPA determines a SIP to be inadequate, a Federal Im-
plementation Plan (FIP) may be prepared for the nonattainment area which
would impose additional control measures. Failure to submit an approvable
SIP or to implement the plan within the mandated timeframe may result in
sanctions being applied to transportation funding and stationary air pollution
sources in the air basin.
Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA has regulated wood stoves and wood heat-
ing devices under 40 CRF Part 60 – Standards of Performance for New Sta-
tionary Sources (NSPS) since 1988. EPA certified wood stoves or wood heat-
ing appliances are independently tested to meet specific particulate emissions
limits of 7.5 grams per hour for noncatalytic wood stoves and 4.1 grams per
hour for catalytic wood stoves. All wood heating appliances subject to the
New Source Performance Standard for New Residential Wood Heaters under
the Clean Air Act offered for sale in the United States are required to meet
these emission limits. Phase II stoves are those certified to meet the July 1,
1990, EPA standards; Phase I stoves meet only the July 1, 1988, EPA stand-
ards.
2. State Laws and Regulations
California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) and NAAQS for the
criteria air pollutants are listed in Table 4.3-1.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
AIR QUALITY
4.3-3
TABLE 4.3-1 FEDERAL AND STATE AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
Pollutant
Averaging
Time
California Standardsa Federal Standardsb
Concentrationc Methodd Primaryc,e Secondaryc,f Methodg
Ozone
(O3)
1-Hour 0.09 ppm
(180 µg/m3) Ultraviolet
Photometry
No Federal
Standard Same as
Primary
Standard
Ultraviolet
Photometry 8-Hour 0.07 ppm
(137 µg/m3)
0.075 ppm
(147 µg/m3)
Respirable
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)
24-Hour 50 µg/m3
Gravimetric or Beta
Attenuation
150 µg/m3 Same as
Primary
Standard
Inertial
Separation and
Gravimetric
Analysis
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
20 µg/m3 –
Fine
Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5)
24-Hour No Separate State Standard 35 µg/m3 Same as
Primary
Standard
Inertial
Separation and
Gravimetric
Analysis
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
12 µg/m3 Gravimetric or Beta
Attenuation 15 µg/m3
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
8-Hour 9.0 ppm
(10 mg/m3) Non-Dispersive
Infrared
Photometry
(NDIR)
9 ppm
(10 mg/m3) None
Non-Dispersive
Infrared
Photometry
(NDIR) 1-Hour 20 ppm
(23 mg/m3)
35 ppm
(40 mg/m3)
8-Hour
(Lake Tahoe)
6 ppm
(7 mg/m3) – – –
Nitrogen
Dioxide
(NO2)
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
0.03 ppm
(57 µg/m3) Gas Phase
Chemiluminescence
53 ppb
(100 µg/m3)
(see footnote h)
Same as
Primary
Standard Gas Phase
Chemiluminesce
nce 1-Hour 0.18 ppm
(339 µg/m3)
100 ppb
(188 µg/m3)
(see footnote h)
None
Lead
(Pb) 10
30-Day
Average 1.5 µg/m3
Atomic Absorption
– – –
Calendar
Quarter – 1.5 µg/m3 Same as
Primary
Standard
High-Volume
Sampler and
Atomic
Absorption
Rolling
3-Month
Averagei
–
0.15 µg/m3
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
AIR QUALITY
TABLE 4.3-1 FEDERAL AND STATE AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS (CONTINUED)
4.3-4
Pollutant
Averaging
Time
California Standardsa Federal Standardsb
Concentrationc Methodd Primaryc,e Secondaryc,f Methodg
Sulfur
Dioxide
(SO2)
24-Hour 0.04 ppm
(105 µg/m3)
Ultraviolet
Fluorescence – – Ultraviolet
Flourescence;
Spectro-
photometry
(Pararosaniline
Method)i
3-Hour –
–
0.5 ppm
(1300 µg/m3)
(see footnote i)
1-Hour 0.25 ppm
(655 µg/m3)
75 ppb (196
µg/m3)
(see footnote i)
–
Visibility-
Reducing
Particles
8-Hour
Extinction coefficient of 0.23 per
kilometer - visibility of 10 miles or more
(0.07–30 miles or more for Lake Tahoe)
due to particles when relative humidity
is less than 70 percent. Method: Beta
Attenuation and Transmittance through
Filter Tape. No Federal Standards
Sulfates 24-Hour 25 µg/m3 Ion
Chromatography
Hydrogen
Sulfide 1-Hour 0.03 ppm
(42 µg/m3)
Ultraviolet
Fluorescence
Vinyl
Chloridej 24-Hour 0.01 ppm
(26 µg/m3)
Gas
Chromatography
a California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1- and 24-hour), nitrogen dioxide, suspended
particulate matter – PM10, PM2.5, and visibility reducing particles, are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be
equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the
California Code of Regulations.
b National standards (other than ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic mean) are not to
be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration in a year, averaged
over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24-hour standard is attained when the expected number of days
per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 µg/m3 is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, the 24-hour stand-
ard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the standard. Contact
U.S. EPA for further clarification and current federal policies.
c Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based upon a reference
temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr. Most measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference tem-
perature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr; ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per
mole of gas.
d Any equivalent procedure which can be shown to the satisfaction of the ARB to give equivalent results at or near the level of the air
quality standard may be used.
e National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health.
f National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated ad-
verse effects of a pollutant.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
AIR QUALITY
TABLE 4.3-1 FEDERAL AND STATE AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS (CONTINUED)
4.3-5
7 Reference method as described by the EPA. An “equivalent method” of measurement may be used but must have a “consistent
relationship to the reference method” and must be approved by the EPA.
g To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average at each monitor within an
area must not exceed 0.100 ppm (effective January 22, 2010). Note that the EPA standards are in units of parts per billion (ppb). Cal-
ifornia standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the national standards to the California standards the
units can be converted from ppb to ppm. In this case, the national standards of 53 ppb and 100 ppb are identical to 0.053 ppm and
0.100 ppm, respectively.
h On June 2, 2010, the U.S. EPA established a new 1-hour SO2 standard, effective August 23, 2010, which is based on the 3-year aver-
age of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. EPA also proposed a new automated Federal Reference
Method (FRM) using ultraviolet technology, but will retain the older pararosaniline methods until the new FRM have adequately
permeated State monitoring networks. The EPA also revoked both the existing 24-hour SO2 standard of 0.14 ppm and the annual
primary SO2 standard of 0.030 ppm, effective August 23, 2010. The secondary SO2 standard was not revised at that time; however,
the secondary standard is undergoing a separate review by EPA. Note that the new standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb).
California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the new primary national standard to the Califor-
nia standard the units can be converted to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 75 ppb is identical to 0.075 ppm.
i The ARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as 'toxic air contaminants' (TACs) with no threshold level of exposure for adverse
health effects determined. These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentra-
tions specified for these pollutants.
j National lead standard, rolling 3-month average: final rule signed October 15, 2008.
Source: California Air Resources Board (ARB), September 2010.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
AIR QUALITY
4.3-6
a. California Air Resources Board
The California Air Resources Board (ARB) is the agency responsible for the
coordination and oversight of state and local air pollution control programs
in California and for implementing the California Clean Air Act (CCAA),
adopted in 1988. The CCAA requires that all air districts in the State achieve
and maintain the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) by the
earliest practical date. The act specifies that districts should focus on reducing
the emissions from transportation and air-wide emission sources, and pro-
vides districts with the authority to regulate indirect sources.
ARB is primarily responsible for developing and implementing air pollution
control plans to achieve and maintain the NAAQS. The ARB also oversees
statewide pollution sources and produces a major part of the SIP. Local air
districts provide additional strategies for sources under their jurisdiction. The
ARB combines this data and submits the completed SIP to EPA.
Other ARB duties include monitoring air quality (in conjunction with air
monitoring networks maintained by air pollution control and air quality
management districts), establishing CAAQS (which in many cases are more
stringent than the NAAQS), determining and updating area designations and
maps, and setting emissions standards for new mobile sources, consumer
products, small utility engines, and off-road vehicles.
b. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook
The ARB has also developed an Air Quality and Land Use Handbook2 which
is intended to serve as a general reference guide for evaluating and reducing air
pollution impacts associated with new projects that go through the land use
decision-making process. The ARB handbook recommends that planning
agencies strongly consider proximity to these sources when finding new loca-
tions for "sensitive" land uses such as homes, medical facilities, daycare cen-
ters, schools, and playgrounds.
2 California Air Resources Board, 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A
Community Health Perspective.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
AIR QUALITY
4.3-7
Air pollution sources of concern include freeways, rail yards, ports, refineries,
distribution centers, chrome plating facilities, dry cleaners, and large gasoline
service stations. Key recommendations in the Handbook include taking steps
to avoid siting new, sensitive land uses (including residences, day care centers,
playgrounds, or medical facilities):
¤ Within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles/day or
rural roads with 50,000 vehicles/day.
¤ Within 1,000 feet of a major service and maintenance rail yard.
¤ Immediately downwind of ports (in the most heavily impacted zones)
and petroleum refineries.
¤ Within 300 feet of any dry cleaning operation (for operations with two
or more machines, provide 500 feet).
¤ Within 300 feet of a large gas station (defined as a facility with a through-
put of 3.6 million gallons per year or greater).
The Handbook specifically states that these recommendations are advisory
and acknowledges land use agencies have to balance other considerations, in-
cluding housing and transportation needs, economic development priorities,
and other quality of life issues.
3. Local Regulations and Policies
a. Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District
The three-county Northern Sierra area is considered, in air quality terms, an
air basin. Overall, the air quality conditions in Nevada County are fairly
good due to favorable climate conditions that result in moderate temperatures
and good ventilation. However, exceedances of air quality standards for
ozone and respirable particulate matter pose challenges for air pollution con-
trol agencies. Most of Nevada County’s ozone is transported by wind from
the Sacramento and Bay Areas.
The NSAQMD is primarily responsible for assuring that the National and
State ambient air quality standards are attained and maintained in the counties
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
AIR QUALITY
4.3-8
of Nevada, Plumas, and Sierra. The NSAQMD is also responsible for adopt-
ing and enforcing rules and regulations concerning air pollutant sources, issu-
ing permits for stationary sources of air pollutants, inspecting stationary
sources of air pollutants, responding to citizen complaints, monitoring ambi-
ent air quality and meteorological conditions, awarding grants to reduce mo-
tor vehicle emissions, conducting public education campaigns, as well as
many other activities.
The NSAQMD has rules and regulations to protect regional air quality. Dis-
trict Rule 226 would be applicable to the proposed project. The rule requires
the submittal of a Dust Control Plan to the District for approval prior to any
surface disturbance, including clearing of vegetation. The NSAQMD would
prefer to have the conditions of the Dust Control Plan included in the General
Notes and/or the Grading Plan for the project.
b. Truckee Particulate Matter Air Quality Management Plan
There are no mandated air quality plan requirements for Truckee under ei-
ther federal or State law. However, the Town of Truckee and the NSAQMD
have developed a Particulate Matter Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for
Truckee. The Town Council initiated this planning effort to analyze particu-
late matter pollution and take steps to control particulate matter emissions.
The urgency of this issue was related to exceedances of the State and federal
standards and the possibility of being designated as a federal non-attainment
area and being subject to mandatory sanctions and controls. The Town
Council adopted the Particulate Matter AQMP3 in order to improve air quali-
ty. The goal of this AQMP is as follows:
“The Town shall achieve and maintain compliance with National Ambi-
ent Air Quality Standards for PM10 and PM2.5 as established by the Unit-
ed States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). The Town shall
strive to achieve compliance with State Ambient Air Quality Standards
3 Town of Truckee, 1999. Particulate Matter Air Quality Management Plan.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
AIR QUALITY
4.3-9
for PM10 as established by State law and shall make reasonable progress
toward achieving State particulate matter standards.”
c. Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan
The Conservation and Open Space (COS) element of the Town of Truckee’s
2025 General Plan4 includes the following goals and policies related to air
quality (Table 4.3-2).
The Particulate Matter AQMP includes nine objectives, the first of which
states that new development will mitigate to the maximum extent feasible its
particulate matter emissions from solid fuel burning devices and re-entrained
road dust. In addition, the plan contains several Control Strategies that are
applicable to the project, including Construction/Grading Regulations, Large
Project Emissions Offset, and Road Surfacing. The implementation guide-
lines for each of these strategies are summarized below.
Construction/Grading Regulations:
(1) Best Available Control Measures (BACM) will be used in implementing de-
velopment regulations. Because broom or mechanical sweeping does not
control particulate matter emissions but rather entrains dust into the air,
broom or mechanical sweeping is not considered a BACM without other
measures to control dust during sweeping.
(2) Paved access points or aprons onto Town streets should be installed at the
beginning of construction of large projects. The aprons should be flushed
and swept at least once daily.
(3) Grading Ordinance provisions should be adopted to identify temporary and
permanent erosion control measures and require on-going monitoring of
project grading. Plan Area inspections should be required before grading is
initiated to ensure all necessary control measures, including proper staking
and tree protection measures, are in place.
4 Town of Truckee. Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
AIR QUALITY
4.3-10
TABLE 4.3-2 TRUCKEE GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES
PERTAINING TO AIR QUALITY
Policy or
Goal No. Goals and Policies
Goal COS-13 Reduce particulate matter pollution in Truckee to meet State and
federal ambient air quality standards.
COS-P13.1 Requires multi-family residential, commercial, industrial, subdi-
visions, and other discretionary development to maintain con-
sistency with the goals, policies and control strategies of the
Town’s Particulate Matter Air Quality Management Plan.
COS-P13.2 Existing non-paved roads within new development and subdivi-
sion, and existing off-site non-paved roads that serve new devel-
opment and subdivisions shall be paved to the extent necessary to
offset emissions generated by the development and subdivision
traffic to the degree feasible. New non-paved roads shall not be
allowed for new development and subdivisions except for single-
family residences, secondary residential units, and duplexes on
existing lots. New paving shall take into consideration the poli-
cies under Goal COS-11 concerning minimization of impacts to
water quality and groundwater recharge that may result from
increases in paved areas.
COS-P13.3 Require all construction projects to implement dust control
measures to reduce particulate matter emissions due to disturb-
ance of exposed top-soils. Such measures would include watering
of active areas where disturbance occurs, covering haul loads,
maintaining clean access roads, and cleaning the wheels of con-
struction vehicles accessing disturbed areas of the site.
Goal COS-14 Reduce emissions of air contaminants and minimize public exposure
to toxic, hazardous, and odoriferous air pollutants.
COS-P14.1 Minimize potential impacts created by unpleasant odors, as well
as other airborne pollutants from industrial and commercial de-
velopments.
COS-P14.2 Prohibit sensitive receptors such as residential uses, schools, and
hospitals, from locating in the vicinity of industrial and commer-
cial uses known to emit toxic, hazardous, or odoriferous air pol-
lutants, and prohibit the establishment of such uses in the vicini-
ty of sensitive receptors.
COS-P14.4 Review all discretionary development applications to determine
the need for pedestrian/bike paths connecting to adjacent devel-
opment and services, in order to provide alternatives to automo-
bile transportation.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
AIR QUALITY
TABLE 4.3-2 TRUCKEE GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES
PERTAINING TO AIR QUALITY (CONTINUED)
4.3-11
Policy or
Goal No. Goals and Policies
COS-P14.7 Promote the use of public and private transit services within
Truckee and between the Town and ski resorts and other desti-
nations in the Tahoe area.
COS-P14.9 Require new development with the potential to generate signifi-
cant quantities of ozone precursor air pollutants to be analyzed
in accordance with guidelines provided by the NSAQMD and
appropriate mitigation be applied to the project to minimize
these emissions.
Source: Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan.
(4) A dust suppression plan should be required with grading plans for larger pro-
jects. Regular watering and other dust-preventive measures (e.g., hydroseed-
ing, revegetation) should occur on a frequent basis during project construc-
tion.
(5) For larger projects, securities or bonds may be required to ensure that dust
control measures are properly implemented during grading.
Large Project Emissions Offset:
(1) A large development project will be considered a project that results in 100
or more single-family residential lots, 200 or more multi-family residential
units, 40,000 square feet or more of office, commercial, and/or industrial
floor space, or any equivalent combination thereof.
(2) Guidelines and methodologies will be developed by Town staff with the as-
sistance of the NSAQMD to calculate particulate matter emissions and iden-
tify feasible mitigation measures. The guidelines will identify those emission
sources for which emissions must be estimated (e.g., wood combustion de-
vices, vehicle emissions, re-entrained road dust both on- and off-site) and list
feasible mitigation measures that may be implemented to offset emissions.
(3) Emissions generated by the project shall be offset by 100 percent upon im-
plementation of the mitigation measures. The offset should be proportional
to fine and coarse particulate matter emissions generated by the project. For
example, if 40 percent of the project’s particulate matter emissions are fine,
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
AIR QUALITY
4.3-12
then 40 percent of the offset should be directed to reducing fine particulate
matter emissions.
(4) If there are not sufficient measures that can be implemented to offset project
emissions, a mitigation fee ($ per annual ton) may be paid in-lieu of other
mitigation measures. The amount of the mitigation fee will be determined as
part of the guidelines and methodology to be developed as part of this con-
trol strategy. The mitigation fees will be used as part of the Town’s air qual-
ity mitigation funds to study and reduce particulate matter pollution and to
implement other control strategies.
Road Surfacing:
(1) Projects and subdivisions will be required to offset (by paving of roadways)
100 percent of their emissions generated by new traffic on non-paved road-
ways. Exemptions will be provided for single-family residences, duplexes,
and secondary residential units constructed on existing lots and for subdivi-
sion roads that provide access to four or less parcels.
4. Attainment Status Designations
The ARB is required to designate areas of the State as attainment, nonattain-
ment or unclassified for any State standard. An “attainment” designation for
an area signifies that pollutant concentrations did not violate the standard for
that pollutant in that area. A “nonattainment” designation indicates that a
pollutant concentration violated the standard at least once, excluding those
occasions when a violation was caused by an exceptional event, as defined in
the criteria. An “unclassified” designation signifies that data does not support
either an attainment or nonattainment status. The California Clear Air Act
divides districts into moderate, serious, and severe air pollution categories,
with increasingly stringent control requirements mandated for each category.
The U.S. EPA designates areas for O3, CO, and NO2 as either “does not meet
the primary standards,” or “cannot be classified,” or “better than national
standards.” For SO2, areas are designated as “does not meet the primary
standards,” “does not meet the secondary standards,” “cannot be classified,” or
“better than national standards.” In 1991, new nonattainment designations
were assigned to areas that had previously been classified as Group I, II, or III
for PM10 based on the likelihood that they would violate national PM10 stand-
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
AIR QUALITY
4.3-13
ards. All other areas are designated “unclassified.” Table 4.3-3 provides a
summary of the attainment status for the Nevada County with respect to
national and State ambient air quality standards. As noted in the table foot-
notes, while western Nevada County has recently been designated as non-
attainment for the federal 8-hour Ozone Standard, the eastern portion of Ne-
vada County, including the Town of Truckee, remains in attainment for the
federal 8-hour Ozone Standard.
B. Existing Conditions
The following discussion provides brief summaries of regional air quality,
local climate and air quality, and air pollution climatology.
1. Regional Air Quality
The Town of Truckee and the Martis Valley Region is in a mountain-type air
basin. Mountainous terrain surrounding the region limits the mixing of air
near the surface, and because of the high elevation, radiative cooling is consid-
erable.
Radiative cooling occurs when the ground cools faster than the air at night,
causing the layer of air next to the ground in lower-lying valleys to be cooler;
at high elevations where there is less moisture in the air to retain heat from
the daytime, the ground cools the air faster. At nighttime, cold air sinks off
the mountains into the basin, further lowering the temperature. Thus,
Truckee typically records the lowest temperature in the United States on sev-
eral days during the year, mostly in late spring through summer.
The Town of Truckee is within the jurisdiction of the NSAQMD, which
regulates air quality for Nevada, Plumas, and Sierra Counties. Air quality
conditions in the Northern Sierra area have improved significantly since the
NSAQMD was created in 1986. Ambient concentrations of air pollutants
and the number of days during which the region exceeds air quality standards
have fallen dramatically. Exceedances of air quality standards occur primarily
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
AIR QUALITY
4.3-14
TABLE 4.3-3 NSAQMD NEVADA COUNTY ATTAINMENT STATUS
Pollutant
Average
Time
California Standardsa
Attainment Status
National Standardsb
Attainment Status
Carbon
Monoxide (CO)
8-Hour Unclassified Unclassified/Attainment
1-Hour Unclassified Unclassified/Attainment
Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2)
Annual Mean Not Applicable Unclassified/Attainment
1-Hour Attainment Not Applicable
Ozone (O3)
8-Hour
Nonattainment (with
recognition of overwhelming
transport, so no Triennieal
Plan or AFM required)
1997 Standard (80 ppb): Western Nevada
County: Nonattainment (proposed
moderate); Eastern Nevada County:
Unclassified/
Attainment
2008 Standard (75 ppb): Revisions to
standard have been proposed. Western
Nevada County: Recommended
Nonattainment by ARB; Eastern Nevada
County: Recommended Unclassifiable by
ARB.b
1-Hour
Nonattainment (with
recognition of overwhelming
transport, so no Triennieal
Plan or AFM required)
Not Applicable
Suspended
Particulate
Matter (PM10)
Annual Mean Nonattainment Not Applicable
24-Hour Nonattainment Unclassified
Suspended
Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)
Annual Mean Unclassified Unclassifiable/Attainment
24-Hour Not Applicable Unclassified
Lead (pb)
30-Day Average Attainment Not Applicable
Calendar
Quarter Not Applicable Recommended Uncassifiable by ARB
Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2)
Annual Mean Not Applicable Unclassified
24-Hour Attainment Unclassified
1-Hour Attainment Not Applicable
Notes: Lead (Pb) is not listed in the above table because it has been in attainment since the 1980s.
ppm = parts per million
mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter
µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
a California standards for O3, CO (except Lake Tahoe), SO2 (1-hour and 24-hour), NO2 and PM10 are values that are not to be
exceeded. If the standard is for a 1-hour, 8-hour, or 24-hour average, then some measurements may be excluded. In particular,
measurements are excluded that ARB determines would occur less than once per year on the average.
b Eastern Nevada County, including the Town of Truckee remains in attainment.
Source: California Air Resources Board, http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm and NSAQMD, 2011.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
AIR QUALITY
4.3-15
during meteorological conditions conducive to high pollution levels, such as
cold, windless winter nights or hot, sunny summer afternoons.
Ozone levels, measured by peak concentrations and the number of days over
the State 1-hour standard, have declined substantially as a result of aggressive
programs by the NSAQMD and other regional, State and federal agencies.
The reduction of peak concentrations represents progress in improving public
health; however, the Northern Sierra area still exceeds the State standard for
1-hour ozone.
Particulate matter is the primary pollutant of concern in Truckee. Inhalable
particulate or PM10 (particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter) and
PM2.5 (particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter) refers to a wide vari-
ety of solid or liquid particles in the atmosphere. These include smoke, dust,
aerosols, and metallic oxides. Some of these particulates are considered toxic.
Although particulates are found naturally in the air, most particulate matter
found in the region are emitted either directly or indirectly by motor vehi-
cles, industry, construction, wood burning, re-entrained road dust, and wind
erosion of disturbed areas. Most PM2.5 is comprised of combustion products
(i.e. soot). High levels of PM10 and PM2.5 can lead to adverse health effects,
nuisance concerns, and reduced visibility. The Northern Sierra area is con-
sidered a nonattainment area for PM10 (Nevada, Sierra and Plumas Counties)
and PM2.5 (Portola Valley in Plumas County) relative to the State standard,
and unclassified for the federal standards.
No exceedances of the State or federal CO standards have been recorded at
any of the region’s monitoring stations since 1991. The Northern Sierra area
is currently considered a maintenance area for State and federal CO standards.
Toxic air contaminants (TACs) are not criteria pollutants, but are associated
with health-related effects and have appreciable concentrations within the
Northern Sierra area. The U.S. EPA and the ARB have identified over 800
substances that are emitted into the air that may affect human health. Some
of these substances are considered to be carcinogens, while others are known
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT E IR
AIR QUALITY
4.3-16
to have other adverse health effects. As part of ongoing efforts to identify
and assess potential health risks to the public, the NSAQMD has collected
and compiled air toxics emissions data from industrial and commercial
sources of air pollution throughout the three-county area. Monitoring data
and emissions inventory of TACs helps the NSAQMD determine health risk
to Northern Sierra residents. The 2003 emissions inventory shows that emis-
sions of many TACs are decreasing in the Nevada, Plumas, and Sierra Coun-
ties.
Ambient monitoring concentrations of TACs indicate that pollutants emitted
primarily from motor vehicles (1,3-butadiene and benzene) account for slight-
ly over one half of the average calculated cancer risk from ambient air in the
Northern Sierra area. According to the NSAQMD, ambient benzene levels
declined dramatically in 1996 with the advent of Phase 2 reformulated gaso-
line. Due to this reduction, the calculated average cancer risk based on moni-
toring results has been reduced to 143 in 1 million; however, this risk does
not include the risk resulting from exposure to diesel particulate matter or
other compounds not monitored. Although not specifically monitored, re-
cent studies indicate that exposure to diesel particulate matter may contribute
significantly to a cancer risk (approximately 500-700 in one million) that is
greater than all other measured TACs combined.
Most of Nevada County’s ozone is transported by wind from the Sacramento
and Bay Areas. Ozone is formed by volatile compounds (VOC or ROG) and
oxides of nitrogen (NOx) reacting in sunlight, especially on hot days. Ozone
is an unstable 3-oxygen molecule that oxidizes substances it contacts. Nearly
half of California’s ozone is from car and truck exhaust. The rest is from
power production, off-road equipment, industry, consumer products, vegeta-
tion, and other sources. As noted previously, the eastern portion of Nevada
County, including the Town of Truckee, remains in attainment for the feder-
al eight-hour Ozone Standard.
The Federal Clean Air Act sets requirements for non-attainment areas. West-
ern Nevada County must prepare an Attainment Plan that meets these re-
quirements and shows how ozone levels will be lowered to meet standards as
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
AIR QUALITY
4.3-17
expeditiously as practicable. The NSAQMD has recently adopted all applica-
ble “reasonably available control technologies.” Major air pollution sources
are subject to an emission offset program, and federally funded projects such
as highway improvements must be shown to not make the problem worse.
Another requirement is that Western Nevada County must reduce its emis-
sions of ozone precursors by at least 3 percent per year. Most necessary re-
ductions are expected from statewide measures and from cars becoming clean-
er. Additional requirements vary depending on an area’s classification, which
is tied to a demonstration that the standard can be met by a specific year.
2. Local Climate and Air Quality
Air quality is a function of both local climate and local sources of air pollu-
tion. The amount of a given air pollutant in the atmosphere is determined by
the amount of pollutant released and the atmosphere’s ability to transport
and/or dilute that pollutant. The major determinants of transport and dilu-
tion are wind, atmospheric stability, terrain, and, for photochemical pollu-
tants, sunshine.
Temperatures in Truckee range widely through the course of a day and
through the year. In summer, typical ranges are from 35 to 40 degrees Fahr-
enheit (F) in the morning to above 80 degrees (F) in the afternoons. Temper-
atures in winter can range from nearly zero degrees (F) in the mornings to
above 40 degrees (F) during the afternoon. Annually, mean temperatures (as
measured at Truckee USFS Ranger Station) range from an average minimum
of 15 degrees (F) in January to an average maximum of 82 degrees (F) in Au-
gust. The frost-free season in Truckee averages only 30 days. Although
summer thunderstorms are common, most precipitation falls from late Octo-
ber through early May with winter precipitation usually taking the form of
snow. The cold temperatures and snow cover on the ground are conducive to
the creation of temperature inversion layers.
Mountainous terrain surrounds the Truckee area and is most pronounced in
the west and the south. This area, surrounded by mountainous terrain, can
be described as an air basin for the Truckee region in which air freely circu-
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT E IR
AIR QUALITY
4.3-18
lates within the basin but can be prevented or curtailed from leaving the basin
by the higher elevations. The air pollution potential is lowest for the parts of
the subregion that are highly elevated, due largely to good ventilation and less
influx of pollutants from upwind sources. Pollutants can rise above these
higher elevations, but they can be prevented from escaping the basin by tem-
perature inversions. The occurrence of light winds in the evenings and early
mornings occasionally causes elevated pollutant levels. The air pollution po-
tential is greater at the lower elevated parts of this subregion because of the
lower frequency of strong winds.
A temperature inversion is created when a stable mass of warmer air lies or
sits atop a mass of colder air. This prevents the cold air from rising and mix-
ing with the warmer air. Mountains surrounding a valley or basin act as a
rim, much like the sides of a cup or bowl, and prevent the cold air from mov-
ing laterally. The lack of air movement and turbulence resulting from the
inversion layer (acting as a lid) and the mountains (acting as the bowl) curbs
the dispersal of pollutants. Particulates cannot rise above the inversion layer,
and instead of dispersing and thinning out in a larger air volume, the particu-
lates are trapped within a smaller, confined air space. This increases particu-
late matter concentrations because more and more particulate matter is con-
centrated in a smaller volume of air that cannot expand to accommodate the
increased particulate matter emissions
This subregion contains a variety of industrial air pollution sources. Some
industries are quite close to residential areas. The subregion is also traversed
by frequently congested roadways such as Interstate 80 and Highway 89.
Traffic and congestion, and the motor vehicle emissions they generate, are
increasing.
Pollutant monitoring results for the years 2008 to 2010 are shown in Table
4.3-4. The closest monitoring station with the most current data to the pro-
ject site for ozone and PM2.5 is the Truckee-Fire Station, located in Down-
town Truckee. The closest monitoring station to the project site for PM10 is
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
AIR QUALITY
4.3-19
TABLE 4.3-4 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY AT THE TRUCKEE MONITORING
STATION
Pollutant Standard 2008 2009 2010
Ozone (O3)
Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) 0.077 ND 0.065
Number of days exceeded: State: >0.09 ppm 0 ND 0
Maximum 8-hour concentration (ppm) 0.068 ND 0.053
Number of days exceeded:
State: >0.07 ppm 0 ND 0
Federal: >0.75 ppm 0 ND 0
Coarse Particulates (PM10)
(South Lake Tahoe – Sandy Way Monitoring Station)
Maximum 24-hour concentration (mg/m3) 96.7 52.8 71.4
Number of days exceeded:
State: >50 g/m3 10 1 2
Federal: >150 g/m3 0 0 0
Annual arithmetic average concentration (mg/m3) 17 ND ND
Exceeded for the year:
State: >20 g/m3 No ND ND
Federal: >50 g/m3 No ND ND
Fine Particulates (PM2.5)
Maximum 24-hour concentration (mg/m3) 102.4 34.4 31.7
Number of days exceeded: Federal: >65 g/m3 15 0 0
Annual arithmetic average concentration (mg/m3) 9.76 5.9 5.5
Exceeded for the year:
State: > 12 g/m3 No No No
Federal: > 15 g/m3 No No No
Notes: ppm = parts per million
mg/m3= micrograms per cubic meter
ND = No data. There was insufficient (or no) data for monitoring stations within the
air basin to determine the value.
Source: California Air Resources Board, 2011.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT E IR
AIR QUALITY
4.3-20
the South Lake Tahoe-Sandy Way Monitoring Station, which is located ap-
proximately 30 miles from the project site. There is no available monitoring
data from monitoring stations within the three-county air basin for CO,
NO2, and SO2 concentrations for the past three years. The available air quali-
ty monitoring results indicate that air quality in the project vicinity has gen-
erally been good during this three-year period. As indicated in the monitor-
ing results, neither the State nor federal ozone standards were exceeded during
2008 or 2010 (the only years for which monitoring data is available). State
PM10 standards were exceeded ten times in 2008, but only once in 2009, and
twice in 2010. The area also experienced fifteen violations of the federal
standard in 2008; however, no violations of the State or federal standards for
PM2.5 were recorded at this station for the years 2009 and 2010.
a. Criteria Air Pollutants and Health Effects
Both State and federal governments have established health-based Ambient
Air Quality Standards for six criteria air pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO),
ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), lead (Pb), and sus-
pended particulate matter (PM). In addition, the State has set standards for
sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility reducing particles.
These standards are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace
with a reasonable margin of safety. California Ambient Air Quality Stand-
ards and National Ambient Air Quality standards for criteria air pollutants
are listed in Table 4.3-1. Ambient air quality data from nearby air monitor-
ing stations are shown in Table 4.3-4, while health effects are summarized in
Table 4.3-5. As shown in Table 4.3-5, long-term exposure to elevated levels of
criteria pollutants could result in adverse health effects. However, emission
thresholds established by an air district are used to manage total regional
emissions within an air basin based on the air basin’s attainment status for
criteria pollutants. These emission thresholds were established for individual
projects that would contribute to regional emissions and pollutant concentra-
tions and may adversely affect or delay the projected attainment target year
for certain criteria pollutants.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
AIR QUALITY
4.3-21
TABLE 4.3-5 HEALTH EFFECTS AND SOURCES OF AIR POLLUTANTS
Pollutants Sources Primary Effects
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
¤ Incomplete combustion of
fuels and other carbon-
containing substances, such
as motor exhaust.
¤ Natural events, such as
decomposition of organic
matter.
¤ Reduced tolerance for exercise.
¤ Impairment of mental function.
¤ Impairment of fetal development.
¤ Death at high levels of exposure.
¤ Aggravation of some heart
diseases (angina).
Nitrogen
Dioxide
(NO2)
¤ Motor vehicle exhaust.
¤ High temperature
stationary combustion.
¤ Atmospheric reactions.
¤ Aggravation of respiratory
illness.
¤ Reduced visibility.
¤ Reduced plant growth.
¤ Formation of acid rain.
Ozone
(O3)
¤ Atmospheric reaction of
organic gases with nitrogen
oxides in sunlight.
¤ Aggravation of respiratory and
cardiovascular diseases.
¤ Irritation of eyes.
¤ Impairment of cardiopulmonary
function.
¤ Plant leaf injury.
Lead
(Pb)
¤ Contaminated soil. ¤ Impairment of blood functions
and nerve construction.
¤ Behavioral and hearing problems
in children.
Suspended
Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5 and
PM10)
¤ Stationary combustion of
solid fuels.
¤ Construction activities.
¤ Industrial processes.
¤ Atmospheric chemical
reactions.
¤ Reduced lung function.
¤ Aggravation of the effects of
gaseous pollutants.
¤ Aggravation of respiratory and
cardiorespiratory diseases.
¤ Increased cough and chest
discomfort.
¤ Soiling.
¤ Reduced visibility.
Sulfur
Dioxide
(SO2)
¤ Combustion of sulfur-
containing fossil fuels.
¤ Smelting of sulfur-bearing
metal ores.
¤ Industrial processes.
¤ Aggravation of respiratory
diseases (asthma, emphysema).
¤ Reduced lung function.
¤ Irritation of eyes.
¤ Reduced visibility.
¤ Plant injury.
¤ Deterioration of metals, textiles,
leather, finishes, coatings, etc.
Source: ARB, 2008.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT E IR
AIR QUALITY
4.3-22
Because of the conservative nature of the thresholds and the basin-wide con-
text of individual project emissions, there is no direct correlation between a
single project and localized health effects. One individual project that gener-
ates emissions exceeding a threshold does not necessarily result in adverse
health effects for residents in the project vicinity. This condition is especially
true when the criteria pollutants exceeding thresholds are those with regional
effects, such as ozone precursors like nitrogen oxides (NOx) and reactive or-
ganic gases (ROG).
Overall, the potential for an individual project to significantly degrade re-
gional air quality or contribute to a significant health risk is small, even if the
emission thresholds are exceeded by that project. Because of the overall im-
provement trend in air quality in the air basin, it is unlikely that regional air
quality would worsen or that the overall health risk would increase compared
to current conditions, as a result of emissions from an individual project.
Types of air pollution and their health effects, and other air pollution-related
considerations, are described in Table 4.3-5 and in more detail below.
i. Ozone
Ozone is a secondary air pollutant produced in the atmosphere through a
complex series of photochemical reactions involving ROG and NOx. The
main sources of ROG and NOx, often referred to as ozone precursors, are
combustion processes (including combustion in motor vehicle engines) and
the evaporation of solvents, paints, and fuels. In California, automobiles are
the single largest source of ozone precursors. Ozone is referred to as a re-
gional air pollutant because its precursors are transported and diffused by
wind concurrently with ozone production through the photochemical reac-
tion process. Ozone causes eye irritation, airway constriction, and shortness
of breath and can aggravate existing respiratory diseases such as asthma, bron-
chitis, and emphysema.
ii. Carbon Monoxide
CO is an odorless, colorless gas usually formed as the result of the incomplete
combustion of fuels. The single largest source of CO is motor vehicles.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
AIR QUALITY
4.3-23
While CO transport is limited, it disperses with distance from the source un-
der normal meteorological conditions. However, under certain extreme me-
teorological conditions, CO concentrations near congested roadways or inter-
sections may reach unhealthful levels that adversely affect local sensitive re-
ceptors (e.g., residents, schoolchildren, the elderly, and hospital patients).
Typically, high CO concentrations are associated with roadways or intersec-
tions operating at unacceptable levels of service (LOS) or with extremely high
traffic volumes. Exposure to high concentrations of CO reduces the oxygen-
carrying capacity of the blood and can cause headaches, nausea, dizziness, and
fatigue, impair central nervous system function, and induce angina (chest
pain) in persons with serious heart disease. Very high levels of CO can be
fatal.
iii. Particulate Matter
Particulate matter is a class of air pollutants that consists of heterogeneous
solid and liquid airborne particles from manmade and natural sources. Par-
ticulate matter is categorized in two size ranges: PM10 for particles less than 10
microns in diameter and PM2.5 for particles less than 2.5 microns in diameter.
In California, motor vehicles generate about half of the air basin’s par-
ticulates, through tailpipe emissions as well as brake pad and tire wear. Wood
burning in fireplaces and stoves, industrial facilities, and ground-disturbing
activities such as construction are other sources of such fine particulates.
These fine particulates are small enough to be inhaled into the deepest parts of
the human lung and can cause adverse health effects. According to the ARB,
studies in the United States and elsewhere have demonstrated a strong link
between elevated particulate levels and premature deaths, hospital admissions,
emergency room visits, and asthma attacks, and studies of children’s health in
California have demonstrated that particle pollution may significantly reduce
lung function growth in children. The ARB also reports that statewide at-
tainment of particulate matter standards could prevent thousands of prema-
ture deaths, lower hospital admissions for cardiovascular and respiratory dis-
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT E IR
AIR QUALITY
4.3-24
ease and asthma-related emergency room visits, and avoid hundreds of thou-
sands of episodes of respiratory illness in California.5
iv. Nitrogen Dioxide
NO2 is a reddish brown gas that is a by-product of combustion processes.
Automobiles and industrial operations are the main sources of NO2. Aside
from its contribution to ozone formation, NO2 can increase the risk of acute
and chronic respiratory disease and reduce visibility. NO2 may be visible as a
coloring component on high pollution days, especially in conjunction with
high ozone levels. On January 22, 2010 the U.S. EPA strengthened the health-
based National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for NO2.
v. Sulfur Dioxide
SO2 is a colorless acidic gas with a strong odor. It is produced by the combus-
tion of sulfur-containing fuels such as oil, coal, and diesel. SO2 has the poten-
tial to damage materials and can cause health effects at high concentrations. It
can irritate lung tissue and increase the risk of acute and chronic respiratory
disease.6
vi. Lead
Lead is a metal found naturally in the environment as well as in manufactured
products. The major sources of lead emissions have historically been mobile
and industrial sources. As a result of the phase-out of leaded gasoline, metal
processing is currently the primary source of lead emissions. The highest
levels of lead in air are generally found near lead smelters. Other stationary
sources are waste incinerators, utilities, and lead-acid battery manufactures.
Twenty years ago, mobile sources were the main contributor to ambient lead
concentrations in the air. In the early 1970s, the U.S. EPA established na-
5 California Air Resources Board, 2004. Recent Research Findings: Health Ef-
fects of Particulate Matter and Ozone Air Pollution. Website: www.arb.ca.gov/
research/health/fs/PM-03fs.pdf. Accessed January.
6 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2010. Air Quality CEQA Guide-
lines.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
AIR QUALITY
4.3-25
tional regulations to gradually reduce the lead content in gasoline. In 1975,
unleaded gasoline was introduced for motor vehicles equipped with catalytic
converters. The U.S. EPA banned the use of leaded gasoline in highway ve-
hicles in December 1995. As a result of the U.S. EPA’s regulatory efforts to
remove lead from gasoline, emissions of lead from the transportation sector
and levels of lead in the air decreased dramatically.
vii. Toxic Air Contaminants
TACs are air pollutants that may lead to serious illness or increased mortali-
ty, even when present in relatively low concentrations. Potential human
health effects of TACs include birth defects, neurological damage, cancer, and
death. There are hundreds of different types of TACs with varying degrees of
toxicity. Individual TACs vary greatly in the health risk they present; at a
given level of exposure, one TAC may pose a hazard that is many times
greater than another.
TACs do not have ambient air quality standards, but are regulated by the air
districts using a risk-based approach. This approach uses a health risk assess-
ment to determine what sources and pollutants to control as well as the de-
gree of control. Diesel particulate matter, which is emitted in diesel engine
exhaust, was identified as a TAC by the ARB in 1998. Unlike TACs emitted
from industrial and other stationary sources noted above, most diesel particu-
late matter is emitted from mobile sources—primarily “off-road” sources such
as construction and mining equipment, agricultural equipment, and truck-
mounted refrigeration units, as well as trucks and buses traveling on freeways
and local roadways. Agricultural and mining equipment is not commonly
used in the Truckee area, while construction equipment typically operates for
a limited time at changeable locations. As a result, the readily identifiable
locations where diesel particulate matter is emitted in the project area include
high-traffic roadways and other areas with substantial truck traffic.
The ARB's Diesel Risk Reduction Plan is intended to substantially reduce die-
sel particulate matter emissions and associated health risks through introduc-
tion of ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel—a step already implemented—and cleaner-
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT E IR
AIR QUALITY
4.3-26
burning diesel engines. The technology for reducing diesel particulate matter
emissions from heavy-duty trucks is well established, and both State and fed-
eral agencies are moving aggressively to regulate engines and emission control
systems to reduce and remediate diesel emissions. ARB anticipates that by
2020, average statewide diesel particulate matter concentrations will decrease
by 85 percent from levels in 2000 with full implementation of the Diesel Risk
Reduction Plan, meaning that the statewide health risk from diesel particulate
matter is expected to decrease from 540 cancer cases in 1,000,000 to 21.5 can-
cer cases in 1,000,000.
viii. Odors
Odors are also an important element of local air quality conditions. Specific
activities allowed within each land use category can raise concerns related to
odors on the part of nearby neighbors. Major sources of odors include res-
taurants and wastewater treatment plants. While sources that generate objec-
tionable odors must comply with air quality regulations, the public’s sensitiv-
ity to locally produced odors often exceeds regulatory thresholds.
ix. Sensitive Receptors
Occupants of facilities such as schools, day care centers, parks and play-
grounds, hospitals, and nursing and convalescent homes are considered to be
more sensitive than the general public to poor air quality because the popula-
tion groups associated with these uses have increased susceptibility to respira-
tory disease. Persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise also have in-
creased sensitivity to poor air quality. Residential areas are considered more
sensitive to air quality conditions, compared to commercial and industrial
areas, because people generally spend longer periods of time at their residenc-
es, with greater associated exposure to ambient air quality conditions. Recre-
ational uses are also considered sensitive compared to commercial and indus-
trial uses due to greater exposure to ambient air quality conditions associated
with exercise. Residents surrounding the project site would be considered
sensitive receptors.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
AIR QUALITY
4.3-27
C. Standards of Significance
The proposed project would have a significant impact with regard to air qual-
ity if it would:
¤ Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality
plan.
¤ Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing
or projected air quality violation.
¤ Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollu-
tant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions
which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors).
¤ Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
¤ Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
Additionally, the NSAQMD has developed thresholds of significance for pro-
jects. Three threshold levels are identified, each level having a corresponding
requirement for mitigation:
¤ The Level A thresholds (less than 25 pounds per day for ozone precursors
or 80 pounds per day for PM10), requires only standard mitigation
measures applicable to all projects.
¤ The Level B Thresholds (greater than 25 pounds per day of ozone precur-
sors or 80 pounds per day for PM10) requires additional mitigation.
¤ The Level C threshold (greater than 136 pounds per day for ozone pre-
cursors or PM10) requires the use of all feasible and reasonable mitigation
strategies. Unmitigated emissions above 136 pounds per day are consid-
ered to represent a significant adverse impact.
The Town of Truckee Particulate Matter AQMP also establishes the follow-
ing additional threshold of significance:
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT E IR
AIR QUALITY
4.3-28
¤ Project results in a net increase in wood burning or road dust particulate
matter emissions after implementation of mitigation. The Town of
Truckee Particulate Matter AQMP Objective 1 and Control Strategy 3
establish a significance level of “no net increase” for these sources of par-
ticulate matter.
D. Impact Discussion
1. Project Impacts
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality
plan.
The proposed project is not located in an air basin that is subject to a mandat-
ed clean air plan. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a clean air plan. However, the Town of Truckee’s Particu-
late Matter Air Quality Management Plan requires a no net increase in wood
burning or road dust particulate matter with implementation of mitigation
measures to reduce emissions from these sources. Therefore, project impacts
related to consistency with the applicable air quality plan would be significant
and implementation of the control strategies outlined in the plan would be
required.
b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing
or projected air quality violation.
As shown in Table 4.3-2 above, the proposed project is in a nonattainment
area for State PM10 and ozone standards. The project would have the poten-
tial to violate air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation during the construction phase of the project
and in the long-term, through operational emissions.
The NSAQMD has developed a tiered approach to significance levels: a pro-
ject with emissions meeting Level A thresholds will require the most basic
mitigations; projects with projected emissions in the Level B range will re-
quire more extensive mitigations; and those projects which exceed Level C
thresholds will require the most extensive mitigations.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
AIR QUALITY
4.3-29
i. Short-Term Construction Emission Impacts
The proposed project would require grading and excavation of soil, and other
existing infrastructure improvements which are construction activities with a
high potential for creating air pollutants. Although grading would be bal-
anced on site, as the project’s phases are built out, temporary stockpiles
would be used during grading and filling activities. In addition to the dust
created during grading and excavation, substantial dust emissions could be
created as debris and soil are loaded into trucks for disposal.
Construction dust would also continue to affect local air quality during con-
struction of the project. Construction activities would generate exhaust emis-
sions from vehicles/equipment and fugitive particulate matter emissions that
would affect local air quality.
Construction activities are also a source of organic gas emissions. Solvents in
adhesives, non-water-based paints, thinners, some insulating materials and
caulking materials would evaporate into the atmosphere and would partici-
pate in the photochemical reaction that creates urban ozone. Asphalt used in
paving is also a source of organic gases for a short time after its application.
Project related construction and operational emissions were calculated using
the Urban Emission Model (URBEMIS 2007) which was developed by the
ARB and is the recommended air quality model by the NSAQMD for esti-
mating emissions associated with land use development projects. The emis-
sions were calculated assuming construction phasing from the year 2012
through the year 2025, although actual project construction could take more
than 20 years. For phased projects such as the proposed project, the
NSAQMD requires the construction emissions be included in addition to the
occupied unit’s operational emissions. Following this guidance, air emissions
from project construction were calculated for each of the eight phases of con-
struction following the project phasing map shown in Figure 3-13 and de-
scribed in Chapter 3, Project Description. Table 4.3-6 shows the project con-
struction and operational emissions for each phase of the project assuming an
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT E IR
AIR QUALITY
4.3-30
TABLE 4.3-6 PROJECT REGIONAL EMISSIONS IN POUNDS PER DAY
Reactive
Organic Gases
Nitrogen
Oxides PM10
Phase 1
Construction Emissions 58.27 55.62 65.26
Operational Emissions 17.63 9.78 20.50
Phase 1 Total 75.90 65.40 85.76
Phase 2
Construction Emissions 25.44 24.92 27.42
Operational Emissions 23.77 11.56 29.35
Phase 2 Total 49.21 36.48 56.77
Phase 3
Construction Emissions 37.63 36.67 42.17
Operational Emissions 33.25 14.73 42.62
Phase 3 Total 70.88 51.40 84.84
Phase 4
Construction Emissions 28.49 33.44 31.91
Operational Emissions 40.38 17.00 52.57
Phase 4 Total 68.87 50.44 84.48
Phase 5
Construction Emissions 23.81 17.51 25.49
Operational Emissions 45.80 17.72 60.85
Phase 5 Total 69.61 35.23 86.34
Phase 6
Construction Emissions 52.16 28.83 59.98
Operational Emissions 60.37 23.36 80.22
Phase 6 Total 112.53 52.19 140.20
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
AIR QUALITY
TABLE 4.3-6 PROJECT REGIONAL EMISSIONS IN POUNDS PER DAY
(CONTINUED)
4.3-31
Reactive
Organic Gases
Nitrogen
Oxides PM10
Phase 7
Construction Emissions 29.77 28.60 33.15
Operational Emissions 65.88 21.31 90.69
Phase 7 Total 95.65 49.91 123.84
Phase 8
Construction Emissions 32.73 17.45 35.45
Operational Emissions 74.32 24.04 102.30
Phase 8 Total 107.05 41.49 137.75
Project Buildout
Operational Emissions 74.32 24.04 102.30
Total Project Buildout 74.32 24.04 102.30
Notes: Shaded cells represent an exceedence of the NSAQMD’s Level C threshold.
NSAQMD Level A Significance Threshold is less than 24 lbs/day
NSQAMD Level B Significance Threshold 24-136 lbs/day for ROG and NOx and 79-
136 lbs/day for PM10.
NSQAMD Level C Significance Threshold is exceeding 136 lbs/day.
Source: LSA Associates, Inc., 2011.
18-month construction schedule for each phase. Construction emission esti-
mates are included in Appendix F, Air Quality Data, of this Draft EIR. NSA-
QMD has established thresholds of significance for ozone precursors and fugi-
tive dust of 137 pounds per day. Proposed project emissions shown in Table
4.3-6 would exceed these thresholds of significance for PM10 under the Phase 6
and Phase 8 construction periods, therefore, this impact is potentially signifi-
cant.
ii. Long-Term Project Air Impacts
Long-term air emission impacts would be those associated with changes in
usage of the project site, and in the case of this project, given the long
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
AIR QUALITY
4.3-32
buildout horizon, on-going construction operations would also be a source of
emissions. Mobile source emissions would result from vehicle trips associated
with the proposed project. The URBEMIS 2007 computer program was used
to calculate long-term mobile source emissions associated with the proposed
project. The air emissions model estimate accounts for a 56 percent reduction
in residential wood-burning emissions to account for the NSAQMD’s re-
quirement that all wood burning devices must be EPA Phase II Certified.
Actual reductions in PM and ROG emissions would likely be higher because
non-catalytic and catalytic devices reduce approximately 68 percent of emis-
sions. The model results detail and summary data are provided in Appendix
F of this Draft EIR. The daily emission increase associated with project oper-
ational vehicular trip generation is identified in Table 4.3-6 for reactive organ-
ic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) (two precursors of ozone) as well
as coarse particulate matter (PM10). Project emissions of ROG and NOx for
all phases exceed the NSAQMD’s Level B significance threshold of 25 pounds
per day but not the Level C significance threshold of 137 pounds per day.
Emissions of PM10 exceed the Level C threshold for Phase 6 and Phase 8.
According to NSAQMD thresholds of significance, emissions that fall within
the Level B range require mitigation. Based on these criteria, the proposed
project would have a potentially significant impact on regional ozone air quali-
ty.
iii. Localized Emissions
According to the traffic analysis prepared for the project, intersections in the
immediate project vicinity would not fall at level of service (LOS) D or higher
under the project alone or cumulative conditions. Since the proposed project
is within an attainment area for carbon monoxide (i.e., ambient air quality
standards are currently attained) and in an area with low background concen-
trations, changes in carbon monoxide levels resulting from the proposed pro-
ject would not result in violations of the ambient air quality standards, and
would represent a less than significant impact.
c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollu-
tant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
AIR QUALITY
4.3-33
federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions
which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors).
As shown in Table 4.3-6 above, the proposed project would exceed the signif-
icance criteria established by the NSAQMD at the project level. Projects that
exceed the criteria individually would also be considered to have a significant
cumulative impact. Therefore, the proposed project would contribute to a
significant cumulative air quality impact.
d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
Sources of TACs in the vicinity of the project site include vehicle emissions
from traffic on Interstate 80 as well as train emissions from the Truckee rail
yard. Interstate 80 and the rail line are located more than 1 mile from the
project site. According to the ARB and the Town of Truckee 2025 General
Plan policy, sources such as these, when located more than 1,000 feet from a
receptor location would not present a significant source of emissions.
The implementation of the proposed project would not result in any new
sources of TACs, and the project land uses would not be located near any
existing major sources of TACs. The project would not have the potential to
expose sensitive receptors or the general public to substantial levels of TACs
and would be deemed to have a less-than-significant impact.
e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
Heavy-duty equipment in the project vicinity during construction would
emit odors. However, the construction activity would be short-term and
would cease to occur after individual construction is completed. No other
sources of objectionable odors have been identified for the proposed project
and no mitigation measures are required. Therefore, the proposed project
would have a less-than-significant odor impact.
2. Cumulative Impacts
This section analyzes potential impacts to air quality that could occur from a
combination of the project with The Town buildout identified in the Town of
Truckee 2025 General Plan and reasonably foreseeable projects in the sur-
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
AIR QUALITY
4.3-34
rounding area. The geographic scope of this analysis is taken as the Town of
Truckee sphere of influence (SOI), as defined in the Town of Truckee 2025
General Plan and reasonably foreseeable projects in the surrounding area.
Therefore, a cumulative impact would be considered significant if, taken to-
gether with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects in the Town of
Truckee SOI and other reasonably foreseeable projects in the surrounding
area, it would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan; violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation; result in a cumulatively considera-
ble net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors); expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations;
or create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
As discussed above, the proposed project would individually exceed the signif-
icance criteria established by the NSAQMD for PM10, therefore, this impact
would also be considered cumulatively significant. However, implementation
of Mitigation Measures AIR-1 and AIR-2 would reduce this impact to a less-
than-significant level. Therefore, development on the project site would not
cause or contribute to a cumulative air quality impact. Overall, cumulative
impacts to air quality from the buildout of the proposed project in combina-
tion with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects in the
Truckee SOI would be less than significant.
E. Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact AIR-1: Implementation of the proposed project would conflict with
the goals and policies of the Town of Truckee’s Particulate Matter AQMP.
The proposed project is considered a “large development project” in the
AQMP and therefore is subject to compliance with the control strategies out-
lined in the Plan. Large development projects are required to offset project
generated particulate matter emissions by 100 percent. Implementation of
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
AIR QUALITY
4.3-35
Mitigation Measure AIR-1 would ensure the project would be consistent with
the Plan.
Mitigation Measure AIR-1: Each residence shall be equipped with a non-
wood burning source of heat. Prior to issuance of any temporary or final
certificates of occupancy or prior to recordation of the final map, the ap-
plicant shall pay an air quality mitigation fee to the Air Quality Mitiga-
tion Fund to offset PM10 emissions from solid fuel burning appliances.
With payment of offset fee, any solid fuel burning appliances shall be
EPA Phase II Certified and limited to one wood-burning appliance per
residence. The amount of the fee shall be established by the Town
Council resolution and in effect at the time of the building permit issu-
ance or final map recordation. The fees collected will be used to reduce
particulate matter emissions from existing sources within the Truckee
Air Basin including improvements to street sanding and sweeping opera-
tions to reduce re-entrained road dust emissions.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
Impact AIR-2: The effects of construction activities would be increased dust-
fall and locally elevated levels of PM10 downwind of construction activity.
Construction dust would be generated at levels that would create an annoy-
ance to nearby properties.
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would eliminate or off-
set proposed project emissions from construction impacts. After mitigation,
proposed project impacts would be below the NSAQMD Level C threshold
of 137 pounds per day for ROG, NOx, and PM10. Resulting emission levels
with implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-2 are shown in Table 4.3-7.
Mitigation Measure AIR-2: The project applicant shall submit a con-
struction plan for the project which includes the following conditions:
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
AIR QUALITY
4.3-36
TABLE 4.3-7 MITIGATED PROJECT EMISSIONS IN POUNDS PER DAY
ROG NOx PM10
Phase 6
Construction Emissions 52.16 28.83 17.00
Phase 8
Construction Emissions 32.73 17.45 9.73
Notes: NSAQMD Level A Significance Threshold is less than 24 lbs/day.
NSQAMD Level B Significance Threshold 24-136 lbs/day for ROG and NOx and 79-136
lbs/day for PM10.
NSQAMD Level C Significance Threshold is exceeding 136 lbs/day.
Source: LSA Associates, Inc. 2011.
¤ Open burning of vegetative material shall be prohibited. Among suit-
able alternatives are chipping, mulching, or conversion to biomass
fuel.
¤ The applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that adequate dust con-
trol measures are implemented in a timely manner during all phases of
project development and construction.
¤ Temporary traffic control shall be provided during all phases of con-
struction to improve traffic flow as deemed appropriate by local
transportation agencies.
¤ Construction activities shall be scheduled to direct traffic flow to off-
peak hours as much as practicable.
¤ All material excavated, stockpiled, or graded shall be sufficiently wa-
tered, treated, or covered to prevent fugitive dust from leaving the
property boundaries and causing a public nuisance or violation of am-
bient air standards during the dry season. Watering shall occur at least
twice daily, with complete site coverage during the dry season.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
AIR QUALITY
4.3-37
¤ The project sponsor shall pave all access points or aprons onto Town
streets prior to construction of Phase 1. The aprons shall be flushed
and swept a minimum of once per day.
¤ All areas with vehicle traffic shall be watered or have dust palliative
applied as necessary for regular stabilization of dust emissions.
¤ All on-site vehicle traffic shall be limited to a speed of 15 miles per
hour (mph) on unpaved roads.
¤ All inactive portions of the development site (previously graded areas
which remain inactive for 96 hours) shall be covered, seeded, or wa-
tered until a suitable cover is established. Alternatively, the applicant
may apply Town-approved non-toxic soil stabilizers (according to
manufacturer’s specifications) to all inactive construction areas in ac-
cordance with the local grading ordinance.
¤ All material transported off-site shall be either sufficiently watered or
securely covered to prevent public nuisance, and there must be a min-
imum of six inches of freeboard in the bed of the transport vehicle.
¤ Wheel washers shall be installed where project vehicles and/or
equipment enter and/or exit onto paved streets from unpaved roads.
Vehicles and/or equipment shall be washed prior to each trip if neces-
sary.
¤ Grid power shall be used (as opposed to diesel generators) for job site
power needs where feasible during construction.
¤ All self-propelled off-road diesel-powered equipment and vehicles
greater than 25 horsepower shall be equipped with an engine meeting
at least Tier 2 emission standards.
¤ Prior to final occupancy, the applicant shall re-establish ground cover
on the site through seeding and watering in accordance with Town of
Truckee requirements.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
AIR QUALITY
4.3-38
Impact AIR-3: Regional operation emissions would fall within NSAQMD’s
Level B threshold. Implementation Mitigation AIR-1 and the following miti-
gation measure would bring the operation of the proposed project into com-
pliance with the requirements of the NSAQMD.
Mitigation Measure AIR-3: Residential open burning shall be prohibited
within the project.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-1
This section describes the biological resources present or potentially present
on the project site, and discusses potential impacts to these resources that
could result from buildout of the project, as well as associated mitigation
measures to offset any impacts.
A. Regulatory Framework
1. Special-Status Species
Special status plants and wildlife are those species that are 1) listed as rare,
threatened, or endangered by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or the
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) under State or federal En-
dangered Species Acts, 2) on formal lists as candidates for listing as threatened
or endangered, 3) on formal lists as species of concern, or 4) otherwise recog-
nized at the federal, State, or local level as sensitive.
a. Federal Endangered Species Act
Under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA), it is unlawful to “take”
any species listed as threatened or endangered. “Take” is defined as to “harass,
harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt
to engage in any such conduct.” An activity is defined as “take” even if it is
unintentional or accidental. Take provisions under FESA apply only to listed
fish and wildlife species under the jurisdiction of the USFWS and/or the Na-
tional Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS). Consultation with USFWS or NMFS is required if a project
“may affect” or result in “take” of a listed species.
When a species is listed, the USFWS and/or NMFS, in most cases, must offi-
cially designate specific areas as critical habitat for the species. Consultation
with USFWS and/or NMFS is required for projects that include a federal ac-
tion or federal funding if the project will modify designated critical habitat.
b. California Endangered Species Act
Under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), it is unlawful to “take”
any species listed as rare, threatened, or endangered. “Take” means to “hunt,
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-2
pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or
kill.” CESA take provisions apply to fish, wildlife, and plant species. Take
may result whenever activities occur in areas that support a listed species.
Consultation with CDFG is required if a project will result in “take” of a
listed species.
c. Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits actions that will result in
“take” of migratory birds, their eggs, feathers, or nests. “Take” is defined in
the MBTA to include by any means or in any manner, any attempt at hunt-
ing, pursuing, wounding, killing, possessing or transporting any migratory
bird, nest, egg, or part thereof.
Migratory birds are also protected, as defined in the MBTA, under Section
3513 of the California Fish and Game Code. In addition, Section 3503 of the
California Fish and Game Code prohibits the take, possession, or needless
destruction of the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by
the California Fish and Game Code or other regulation.
2. Jurisdictional Waters
Jurisdictional waters include most drainage features (e.g. rivers, streams), open
water features (e.g. lakes, ponds), and wetlands (e.g. marshes, seeps). Jurisdic-
tional waters are often regulated by one or more government agencies, as de-
scribed below.
a. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (ACOE) regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into wa-
ters of the U.S. These are waters that have a connection to interstate com-
merce, either direct via a tributary system or indirect through a nexus identi-
fied in the ACOE regulations. In non-tidal waters, the lateral limit of juris-
diction under Section 404 extends to the ordinary high water mark (OHWM)
of a waterbody or, where adjacent wetlands are present, beyond the OHWM
to the limit of the wetlands. The OHWM is defined as “that line on the shore
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-3
established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteris-
tics such as a clear natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the
character of the soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter
and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the
surrounding area”.1 In tidal waters, the lateral limit of jurisdiction extends to
the high tidal line (HTL) or, where adjacent wetlands are present, beyond the
HTL to the limit of the wetlands.
Wetlands are defined as “those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface
or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that
under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically
adapted for a life in saturated soil conditions.” Non-wetland waters essential-
ly include any body of water, not otherwise exempted, that displays an
OHWM.
b. Regional Water Quality Control Board
Under Section 401 of the CWA, the State Water Resources Control Board
must certify all activities requiring a 404 permit. The Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB) regulates these activities and issues water quality
certification for those activities requiring a 404 permit. In addition, the
RWQCB has authority to regulate the discharge of “waste” into waters of the
State pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
(PCWQCA). The RWQCB may also regulate the discharge of fill within the
100-year floodplain of waters of the State.
c. California Department of Fish and Game
The California Department of Fish and Game, through provisions of Sections
1600-1616 of the State of California Code of Regulations (CCR), is empow-
ered to issue agreements for any alteration of a river, stream, or lake where
fish or wildlife resources may be substantially adversely affected. Streams
(and rivers) are defined by the presence of a channel bed and banks, and the
1 Title 33: Navigation and Navigable Waters, Chapter Ii: Corps of Engineers,
Department of The Army, Department of Defense, Part 328: Definition of Waters of
The United States, 328.3 Definitions.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-4
conveyance of at least ephemeral flows. The CDFG regulates wetland areas
only to the extent that those wetlands are part of a river, stream, or lake as
defined by CDFG.
The CDFG generally includes, within the jurisdictional limits of streams and
lakes, any riparian habitat present. Riparian habitat includes willows, cot-
tonwoods, and other vegetation typically associated with the banks of a
stream or lake shoreline. In most situations, wetlands associated with a
stream or lake would fall within the limits of riparian habitat. Thus, defining
the limits of the CDFG jurisdiction based on riparian habitat will typically
include any wetland areas. The CDFG has not defined wetlands for jurisdic-
tional purposes. Wetlands not associated with a lake, stream, or other regu-
lated area are generally not subject to the CDFG jurisdiction.
3. Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan
The following goals from the Conservation and Open Space Element of the
Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan are applicable to biological resources (see
Table 4.4-1).
4. Town of Truckee Development Code
The following chapters from the Town of Truckee Development Code, Arti-
cle III – Site Planning and General Development Standards, are applicable to
biological resources.
¤ Chapter 18.30 – Purpose and Applicability
¤ Chapter 18.34 – Flood Plain
¤ Chapter 18.36 – Hillside Development Standards
¤ Chapter 18.38 – Lake and River/Stream Corridor Development
¤ Chapter 18.46 – Open Space/Cluster Requirements
B. Existing Conditions
This section provides a description of the existing conditions on the project
site relative to biological resources. A discussion of the methods for analysis
is also included.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-5
TABLE 4.4-1 TRUCKEE GENERAL PLAN POLICIES PERTAINING TO
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Policy or
Goal No. Goals and Policies
Goal LU-4 Coordinate land development with provision of services and infra-
structure.
LU-P4.1
Require new infrastructure and development to be designed and
built to manage stormwater runoff and to minimize or eliminate
harmful impacts to property prone to flooding, water quality, and
riparian, wetland, and meadow habitats. When infrastructure is
replaced or retrofitted, require the upgrading of stormwater man-
agement systems to minimize or eliminate these impacts.
Goal LU-7
Encourage clustered residential development to create efficient devel-
opment patterns, and to minimize environmental impacts and threats
to public safety.
LU-P7.1
For all residential developments, require clustering where appro-
priate. Clustered development as defined in this General Plan
includes the following considerations:
¤ Clustering of residential development will allow flexibility of
site design in responding to the natural features and resources of
an individual site.
¤ Clustering means that structures will be located on a site so that
larger areas are left as undeveloped open space.
¤ Undeveloped areas may either be preserved in private or public
open space, or may be a portion of an individual lot, with deed
restrictions prohibiting construction in that portion.
LU-P7.2
Residential development shall be clustered to avoid areas of signifi-
cant natural resources, including wildlife habitat and migration
corridors and visual resources.
LU-P7.4
Clustered development shall incorporate preservation of open
space areas as an integral and primary consideration in the overall
development plan for a site. Considerations in preserving open
space through clustering shall include the following:
¤ Maximizing preservation of open space types that reflect the
Town’s priorities as stated in the Conservation and Open Space
Element.
¤ Maintaining an appropriate relationship of the site to the char-
acter and context of adjacent neighborhood areas and nearby
and adjoining open space areas.
¤ Respecting individual site features and characteristics, including
topography, natural features, natural hazards and constraints,
and the presence of sensitive biological resources.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
TABLE 4.4-1 TRUCKEE GENERAL PLAN POLICIES PERTAINING TO
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (CONTINUED)
4.4-6
Policy or
Goal No. Goals and Policies
Goal CC-2
Preserve the natural beauty of Truckee, including the Town’s scenic
resources, views and vistas, and the visual quality of the town’s steep
slopes, ridge and bluff lines and hillsides.
CC-P2.10 Encourage the preservation of trees and native vegetation, includ-
ing specimen trees, in development projects.
Goal COS-1 Preserve existing open space in Truckee, and increase the amount of
desired types of open space under permanent protection.
COS-P1.5
Adhere to the following criteria for open space preserved through
direct actions of the Town, through open space and clustered de-
velopment requirements and incentives, and through the devel-
opment review process:
¤ Provide the maximum possible degree of community benefit, as
expressed through the Vision for Truckee and the guiding prin-
ciples, goals and policies of the General Plan.
¤ Preserve open space that, to the greatest possible extent, occurs
in large blocks and is contiguous and connected.
¤ Provide the greatest possible level of public access while respect-
ing private property rights, sensitive habitat values, and safety
concerns.
¤ Provide maximum benefit in terms of habitat preservation.
¤ Enhance the overall character of Truckee as a scenic, mountain
community.
Goal COS-4 Protect areas of significant wildlife habitat and sensitive biological
resources.
COS-P4.1
Provide for the integrity and continuity of biological resources
open space, habitat, and wildlife movement corridors and support
the permanent protection and restoration of these areas, particular-
ly those identified as sensitive resources.
COS-P4.2
Protect sensitive wildlife habitat from destruction and intrusion by
incompatible land uses where appropriate. All efforts to protect
sensitive habitats should consider:
¤ Sensitive habitat and movement corridors in the areas adjacent
to development sites, as well as on the development site itself.
¤ Prevention of habitat fragmentation and loss of connectivity.
¤ Use of appropriate protection measures for sensitive habitat
areas such as non-disturbance easements and open space zoning.
¤ Off-site habitat restoration as a potential mitigation provided
that no net loss of habitat value results.
¤ Potential mitigation or elimination of impacts through manda-
tory clustering of development, and/or project redesign.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
TABLE 4.4-1 TRUCKEE GENERAL PLAN POLICIES PERTAINING TO
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (CONTINUED)
4.4-7
Policy or
Goal No. Goals and Policies
COS-P4.4
Preserve riparian corridors, Donner Lake and aquatic and wetland
areas through application of setbacks and other development
standards that respect these resources.
COS-P4.5
Development shall be prohibited within established setback areas
for streams and waterways other than the Truckee River, except as
otherwise allowed in the Development Code; such setbacks shall
be between 20 and 50 feet on parcels less than 175 feet deep (de-
pending on parcel depth), and 50 feet on parcels 175 feet deep or
more.
Goal COS-5
Maintain biodiversity among plant and animal species in the Town of
Truckee and the surrounding area, with special consideration of species
identified as sensitive, rare, declining, unique, or representing valuable
biological resources.
COS-P5.1 Require biological resource assessments for all development in
areas where special status species may be present.
COS-P5.2
Protect native plant species in undisturbed portions of a develop-
ment site and encourage planting and regeneration of native plant
species wherever possible in undisturbed portions of the project
site.
COS-P5.3 Protect to the extent possible federal or State-designated endan-
gered, threatened, special status or candidate species.
Goal COS-9 Link open space areas in Truckee through a well-connected network of
open space corridors and trails.
COS-P9.1
Provide for links between open space areas, both within Truckee
and beyond the Town limits, to create contiguous habitat areas
and enhance public access through greater connectivity.
Source: Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan.
1. Methods
a. Literature Search
Prior to conducting any field work, LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) performed
database searches of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and
California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Online Inventory referencing the
Martis Peak, Truckee, Hobart Mills, Boca, Tahoe City, and Kings Beach Cali-
fornia United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quad-
rangles. LSA also obtained a species list from the USFWS, Sacramento Field
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-8
Office website, referencing these quadrangles. Foothill Associates, Inc.
(Foothill) also performed a detailed review of existing literature over a period
of more than 20 years regarding wildlife use and movement on the site and in
the region. A list of referenced material is provided in Appendix E of this
Draft EIR.
LSA and Foothill also reviewed prior biological documentation that was re-
cently prepared and is associated with the project site. These include:
¤ Biological Resource Analysis for the Tahoe Boca Estates Project Site,
prepared by Foothill Associates, Inc., dated August 6, 2004;
¤ Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan Conservation and Open Space Ele-
ment, adopted November 16, 2006;
¤ Draft Environmental Impact Report, Canyon Springs Subdivision, State
Clearinghouse Number 2004052060, prepared by Quad Knopf, dated
April 2007;2
¤ Movement and Migration of Mule Deer at the Canyon Springs Site,
Truckee, CA, prepared by RMT, Inc., dated October 20, 2009.
¤ Delineation of Waters of the U.S. Canyon Spring, Town of Truckee,
#200300655, prepared by Heal Environmental Consulting (HEC), dated
January 11, 2011; and
¤ CEQA Significance of Mule Deer at the Canyon Springs Site, Truckee,
CA, prepared by HEC, dated July 28, 2011.
The special status species lists obtained from the CNDDB, CNPS, and
USFWS, and literature listed above, were reviewed to determine which spe-
cies could potentially occur on the project site. Those species with potential
2 The 2007 Draft EIR prepared for the project site by Quad Knopf was com-
pleted and comments were provided by the public and interested agencies; however,
no Final EIR was prepared and the 2007 Draft EIR was not certified. Comments
submitted on the 2007 Draft EIR were taken into consideration for the preparation of
this Draft EIR.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-9
to occur on the project site based on literature review and habitat require-
ments were compiled into a cumulative list presented in Table 4.4-2.
b. Field Surveys
Current field surveys were conducted in the spring and summer of 2011 by
Foothill Associates on April 5, by HEC from May 3 to July 6, and by LSA
on June 8, June 30, and July 11. HEC also conducted surveys in 2010 on Au-
gust 30, September 1-2, and between October 13 and December 16.
i. General Biology and Focused Plant Surveys
The June 8, 2011 survey was conducted by LSA biologist Jeff Bray and con-
sisted of a general reconnaissance level survey of the project site. Since a sub-
stantial amount of field work and reporting has been conducted on the pro-
ject site (i.e. Foothill Associates 2004, and HEC, 2010-2011, and LSA, 2011),
the intent of the June 8, 2011 survey was to determine if site conditions had
changed considerably since the previous surveys had been conducted and to
verify their accuracy. The June 8, 2011 survey was conducted by walking
meandering transects through the project site and documenting site condi-
tions while referencing existing mapping. In addition, wildlife observed on
the project site was identified and recorded.
The June 30 and July 11, 2011 surveys were conducted by LSA botanists
Lucie Adams and Jeannette Halderman, and consisted of focused surveys for
special status plants, primarily Plumas ivesia (Ivesia sericoleuca). Records for
this species are located adjacent to the project site plants listed in Table 4.4-2
as potentially occurring on the project site and were also included in the sur-
vey (except mosses). During the month prior to conducting the survey, LSA
monitored a known population of Plumas ivesia in the vicinity of the project
site to determine when the local population was blooming and clearly identi-
fiable, and then scheduled the focused plant surveys during that time. The
surveys were conducted by walking meandering transects through suitable
habitats on the project site and identifying all plants within the survey area to
a suitable level of taxonomy to determine the status.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-10
TABLE 4.4-2 SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES POTENTIALLY OCCURRING ON THE CANYON SPRINGS SUBDIVISION PROJECT SITE
Common Name/
Scientific Name Status Habitat Requirements Potential for Occurrence
Mammals
California wolverine
Gulo gulo luteus
FC; ST Occurs in a wide variety of habitats in the North
Coast mountains and the Sierra Nevada., especially
mixed coniferous, red fir, and lodgepole
communities.
A – No suitable habitat is present on the project site. In
addition, all CNDDB records of this species within 20 miles of
the project site are located well to the west. This species is also
sensitive to human disturbance.
Pacific fisher
Martes pennanti pacifica
FC; CSC Found in large areas of mature, dense coniferous
forest and deciduous riparian communities with
snags and greater than 50% canopy closure.
A – No suitable habitat is present on the project site. In
addition, all CNDDB records of this species within 20 miles of
the project site are located well to the west.
Sierra marten
Martes americana sierra
None Occurs in old growth and mixed-aged conifer stands
with a minimum of 40 percent crown closure.
Needs snags for cavities and den sites.
A – No suitable habitat is present on the project site. In
addition, all CNDDB records of this species within 20 miles of
the project site are located well to the west or south.
Sierra Nevada mountain beaver
Aplodontia rufa californica
CSC Found in dense growth of small deciduous trees and
shrubs with soft, wet soil and an abundance of water
in the Sierra Nevadas and East Slope.
A – No suitable habitat is present on the project site.
Sierra Nevada red fox
Vulpes Vulpes necator
ST Found from the Cascades down to the Sierra
Nevadas in a variety of habitats from wet meadows
to forested areas. Uses dense vegetation and rocky
areas for cover and den sites. Prefers forests
interspersed with meadows or alpine fell-fields.
L – The habitats on the project site are only marginally suitable
for this species, but there are CNDDB records in the vicinity
and it could potentially occur on the project site.
Sierra Nevada snow shoe hare
Lepus americanus tahoensis
CSC Occurs in boreal regions, typically in riparian
communities with thickets of deciduous trees and
shrubs. Also frequent dense thickets of young
conifers and chaparral communities
A – No suitable habitat is present on the project site.
Silver-haired bat
Lasionycteris noctivagans
None Occurs in coastal and montane forests. Roosts in
hollow trees, beneath sloughing bark, and in cavities.
M – The snags and other mature trees on the project site
provide potential roost sites and the wet meadow habitat is
suitable foraging habitat.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
TABLE 4.4-2 SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES POTENTIALLY OCCURRING ON THE CANYON SPRINGS SUBDIVISION PROJECT SITE (CONTINUED)
4.4-11
Common Name/
Scientific Name Status Habitat Requirements Potential for Occurrence
Birds
Bald eagle
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
FD; SE Nesting restricted to mountainous communities near
permanent water sources. Winters throughout most
of California at lakes, reservoirs, river systems, and
coastal wetlands.
L – No suitable nesting or wintering habitat is present on the
project site, but the site provides marginal foraging habitat and
there are records of this species in the vicinity.
Greater sandhill crane
Grus canadensis tabida
ST Nests in marsh and other wetland habitats in
northeastern California. Winters in the Central
Valley where it forages in grain fields.
A – No suitable habitat is present on the project site.
Northern goshawk
Accipiter gentiles
CSC Typically nests in coniferous forests, on north slopes
and near water, in red fir, lodgepole pine, Jeffrey
pine, and aspens.
L – The Jeffrey pine community is marginally suitable habitat
for this species, but the project is lacking the north slopes and
water resources typically found in suitable habitat for this
species.
Willow flycatcher
Empidonax traillii
SE Inhabits extensive thickets of low, dense willows on
the edge of wet meadows, ponds, or backwaters, at
2,000 – 8,000 ft elevation; requires dense willow
thickets for nesting/roosting. Low, exposed
branches are used for singing posts/hunting perches.
M – No suitable nesting habitat is present on the project site
but suitable nesting habitat occurs in the vicinity.
Consequently, this species could potentially occur on the
project site.
Yellow warbler
Dendroica petechia brewsteri
CSC Nests in riparian habitats and prefers willows,
cottonwoods, aspens, sycamores, and alders for both
nesting and foraging. Also nests in montane
shrubbery in open conifer forests.
M – Marginal nesting habitat is present on the project site and
suitable nesting habitat occurs in the vicinity. Consequently,
this species could potentially occur on the project site.
Amphibians
(USFWS)
Mountain yellow-legged frog
(Sierra Nevada Population)
Rana muscosa
(CDFG)
Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog
Rana sierra
FC; CSC Always encountered within a few feet of water;
partly shaded, shallow streams, and riffles with a
rocky substrate. Tadpoles may require up to two
years to complete their aquatic development.
Endangered populations exist in the San Jacinto, San
Gabriel, and San Bernardino Mountains only.
A – No suitable habitat is present on the project site.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
TABLE 4.4-2 SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES POTENTIALLY OCCURRING ON THE CANYON SPRINGS SUBDIVISION PROJECT SITE (CONTINUED)
4.4-12
Common Name/
Scientific Name Status Habitat Requirements Potential for Occurrence
Fish
Lahontan cutthroat trout
Oncorhynchus clarki henshawi
FT Historically in all accessible cold waters of the
Lahonton Basin. The current distribution is limited
to the Truckee River and several tributaries.
Requires gravel riffles in streams for spawning.
A – No suitable habitat is present on the project site.
Invertebrates
Amphibious caddisfly
Desmona bethula
None Known from Sierra Nevada, including Madera,
Mariposa, Mono, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, and Sierra
counties, and Sequoia National Park. Larvae live in
small spring streams with slow currents in wet
meadows.
A – The aquatic resources on the project site are not perennial
and, therefore, are not suitable habitat for this species.
Cold Spring caddisfly
Lepidostoma ermanae
None Locally distributed in the northern Sierra Nevada.
Found in cold springs at 6,700 feet elevation, that are
permanently shaded. Larvae are restricted to spring
sources. The cylindrical larval case is made from
stones.
A – The aquatic resources on the project site are not perennial
and, therefore, are not suitable habitat for this species.
Kings Canyon chryptochian
caddisfly
Cryptochia excella
None Known from the type locality and from Sagehen
reaches of Lower Kiln tributary, Nevada County.
Restricted to cold spring streams and their sources.
A – The aquatic resources on the project site are not perennial
and, therefore, are not suitable habitat for this species.
Kings Creek ecclisomyia caddisfly
Ecclisomyia bilera
None Known from Lassen Volcanic National Park, Lassen
County, and springs in Lincoln Creek basin in Sierra
County. Larvae live in small, cold springs sources,
and are often found among rocks and gravel.
A – The aquatic resources on the project site are not perennial
and, therefore, are not suitable habitat for this species.
Sagehen Creek goaracean caddisfly
Goeracea oregona
None Benthic species, found in clear, relatively warm
springs. Known from several sites in Nevada
County.
A – The aquatic resources on the project site are not perennial
and, therefore, are not suitable habitat for this species.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
TABLE 4.4-2 SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES POTENTIALLY OCCURRING ON THE CANYON SPRINGS SUBDIVISION PROJECT SITE (CONTINUED)
4.4-13
Common Name/
Scientific Name Status Habitat Requirements Potential for Occurrence
Plants
Alder buckthorn
Rhamnus alnifolia
CNPS 2 Meadows and seeps in upper and lower montane
coniferous forest; montane riparian scrub. 4,500 –
7,000 ft. elevation. Blooms May – July.
U – Marginal habitat for this species is present on the project
site, but this species was not observed during recent focused
plant surveys by LSA in June and July 2011, which were
conducted during the normal blooming period for this species.
Neither was this species observed during previous plant surveys
in 2004 (Foothill Associates, Inc.) and 1990 (Eco-Analysts).
Bolander’s bruchia
Bruchia bolanderi
CNPS 2 Occurs in meadows and seeps in upper and lower
montane coniferous forest, 5,600 – 9,200 ft.
elevation. Blooming period unknown.
L - The aquatic resources on the project site are not perennial
and, therefore, the habitat is only marginally suitable for this
species. Focused surveys were not conducted for mosses.
Broad-nerved hump moss
Meesia uliginosa
CNPS 2 Bogs and fens, meadows and seeps, upper montane
coniferous forest growing on mesic soils; 4,200 –
8,200 ft. elevation. Blooms in October.
L - The aquatic resources on the project site are not perennial
and, therefore, the habitat is only marginally suitable for this
species. Focused surveys were not conducted for mosses.
Carson Range rock-cress
Arabis rigidissima var. demote
CNPS 1B Broadleaf upland forest and upper montane
coniferous forest communities in elevations ranging
from approximately 7,400 to 8,400 feet
A - The project area is well below the elevation range for this
species.
Common moonwort
Botrychium lunaria
CNPS 2 Occurs in meadows and seeps in upper montane and
subalpine coniferous forest, 7,500 – 11,150 ft.
elevation. Blooms in August.
A - The project area is well below the elevation range for this
species.
Davy’s sedge
Carex davyi
CNPS 1B Vernally mesic areas in subalpine and upper montane
coniferous forest; 4,900 – 10,500 ft. Blooms May –
August.
U – Marginal habitat for this species is present on the project
site, but this species was not observed during recent focused
plant surveys by LSA in June and July 2011, which were
conducted during the normal blooming period for this species.
Neither was this species observed during previous plant surveys
in 2004 (Foothill Associates, Inc.) and 1990 (Eco-Analysts).
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
TABLE 4.4-2 SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES POTENTIALLY OCCURRING ON THE CANYON SPRINGS SUBDIVISION PROJECT SITE (CONTINUED)
4.4-14
Common Name/
Scientific Name Status Habitat Requirements Potential for Occurrence
Donner Pass buckwheat
Eriogonum umbellatum var.
torreyanum
CNPS 1B Meadows and seeps, and upper montane coniferous
forest communities; 6,000 – 8,600 ft. elevation.
Blooms July – September.
U – Marginal habitat for this species is present on the project
site, but this species was not observed during recent focused
plant surveys by LSA in June and July 2011, which were
conducted at the start of the normal blooming period for this
species. Neither was this species observed during previous
plant surveys in 2004 (Foothill Associates, Inc.) and 1990 (Eco-
Analysts).
English sundew
Drosera angelica
CNPS
2
Bogs and fens, and meadows and seeps; 4,200 – 6,500
ft. elevation. Blooms June – September.
U – The aquatic resources on the project site are not perennial
and, therefore, are not suitable habitat for this species. In
addition, this species was not observed during recent focused
plant surveys by LSA in June and July 2011, which were
conducted during the normal blooming period for this species.
Neither was this species observed during previous plant surveys
in 2004 (Foothill Associates, Inc.) and 1990 (Eco-Analysts).
Marsh skullcap
Scutellaria galericulata
CNPS 2 Occurs under moist conditions in meadow and
freshwater-marsh habitats, 0 – 6,900 ft. elevation.
Blooms June – September.
U – Potential habitat for this species is present on the project
site, but this species was not observed during recent focused
plant surveys by LSA in June and July 2011, which were
conducted during the normal blooming period for this species.
Neither was this species observed during previous plant surveys
in 2004 (Foothill Associates, Inc.) and 1990 (Eco-Analysts).
Mingan moonwort
Botrychium minganense
CNPS 2 Occurs in bogs and fens in upper and lower montane
coniferous forest, 4,900 – 6,750 ft. elevation. Blooms
July – September.
U – The aquatic resources on the project site are not perennial
and, therefore, are not suitable habitat for this species. In
addition, this species was not observed during recent focused
plant surveys by LSA in June and July 2011, which were
conducted at the start of the normal blooming period for this
species. Neither was this species observed during previous
plant surveys in 2004 (Foothill Associates, Inc.) and 1990 (Eco-
Analysts).
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
TABLE 4.4-2 SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES POTENTIALLY OCCURRING ON THE CANYON SPRINGS SUBDIVISION PROJECT SITE (CONTINUED)
4.4-15
Common Name/
Scientific Name Status Habitat Requirements Potential for Occurrence
Mud sedge
Carex limosa
CNPS 2 Bogs and fens in lower and upper montane
coniferous forests; 4,000 – 9100 ft. elevation. Blooms
June – August.
U – The aquatic resources on the project site are not perennial
and, therefore, are not suitable habitat for this species. In
addition, this species was not observed during recent focused
plant surveys by LSA in June and July 2011, which were
conducted during the normal blooming period for this species.
Neither was this species observed during previous plant surveys
in 2004 (Foothill Associates, Inc.) and 1990 (Eco-Analysts).
Oregon fireweed
Epilobium oreganum
CNPS 1B In and near springs and bogs in meadows, lower and
upper coniferous forest; sometimes in serpentine;
1,640-8,560 ft. Blooms June – September.
U – Marginal habitat for this species is present on the project
site, but this species was not observed during recent focused
plant surveys by LSA in June and July 2011, which were
conducted during the normal blooming period for this species.
Neither was this species observed during previous plant surveys
in 2004 (Foothill Associates, Inc.) and 1990 (Eco-Analysts).
Plumas ivesia
Ivesia sericoleuca
CNPS 1B Vernally mesic areas; in lower montane coniferous
forests, and meadows, 4,800 – 7,200 ft. elevation.
Blooms May – September.
U – Potential habitat for this species is present on the project
site and there are several CNDDB records near the project site.
However, this species was not observed during recent focused
plant surveys by LSA in June and July 2011, which were
conducted during the normal blooming period for this species,
nor was this species observed during previous plant surveys in
2004 (Foothill Associates, Inc.) and 1990 (Eco-Analysts).
Santa Lucia dwarf rush
Juncus luciensis
CNPS 1B Vernal pools, ephemeral drainages, wet meadow
habitats, and streamsides, in lower montane
coniferous forest, chaparral, and Great Basin scrub,
1000 – 6,700 ft. elevation. Blooms April – July.
U – Potential habitat for this species is present on the project
site, but this species was not observed during recent focused
plant surveys by LSA in June and July 2011, which were
conducted during the normal blooming period for this species.
Neither was this species observed during previous plant surveys
in 2004 (Foothill Associates, Inc.) and 1990 (Eco-Analysts).
Sierra starwort
Pseudostellaria sierra
CNPS 1B Chaparral, cismontane woodland, montane
coniferous forest, 4,000 – 6,700 ft. elevation. Blooms
May – August.
U – Potential habitat for this species is present on the project
site, but this species was not observed during recent focused
plant surveys by LSA in June and July 2011, which were
conducted during the normal blooming period for this species.
Neither was this species observed during previous plant surveys
in 2004 (Foothill Associates, Inc.) and 1990 (Eco-Analysts).
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
TABLE 4.4-2 SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES POTENTIALLY OCCURRING ON THE CANYON SPRINGS SUBDIVISION PROJECT SITE (CONTINUED)
4.4-16
Common Name/
Scientific Name Status Habitat Requirements Potential for Occurrence
Slender cottongrass
Eriophorum gracile
CNPS 4 Bogs and fens, meadows and seeps, upper montane
coniferous forest growing on acidic soils; 4,200 –
9,500 ft. elevation. Blooms May – September.
U – Marginal habitat for this species is present on the project
site, but this species was not observed during recent focused
plant surveys by LSA in June and July 2011, which were
conducted during the normal blooming period for this species.
Neither was this species observed during previous plant surveys
in 2004 (Foothill Associates, Inc.) and 1990 (Eco-Analysts).
Tahoe yellow-cress
Rorippa subumbellata
ST; CNPS 1B Meadows and seeps; decomposed granitic beaches; in
lower montane coniferous forest, 6,200 – 6,300 ft.
elevation. Blooms May – September.
A – No suitable habitat is present on the project site. All
current CNDDB records for this species are from Lake Tahoe.
Three-ranked hump moss
Meesia triquetra
CNPS 4 Bogs and fens, meadows and seeps, upper montane
coniferous forest growing on mesic soils; 4,200 –
8,200 ft. elevation. Blooms in October.
L - The aquatic resources on the project site are not perennial
and, therefore, the habitat is only marginally suitable for this
species. Focused surveys were not conducted for mosses.
Wild buckwheat
Eriogonum ovalifolium
None Montane pebble meadow. U – Potential habitat for this species is present on the project
site and this species has been detected near the project site (A.
Juncosa, pers. comm.). However this species was not observed
during recent focused plant surveys by LSA in June and July
2011, nor was this species observed during previous plant
surveys in 2004 (Foothill Associates, Inc.) and 1990 (Eco-
Analysts).
Explanation of Occurrence Potential:
A (Absent) – Species is concluded to be absent from the project site based on no suitable habitat present and/or failure to detect the species during focused surveys.
U (Unexpected) – Species is not expected to occur on the project site based on the failure to detect the species during focused surveys. This occurrence potential is specific to plant species to ac-
count for the fact that even micro-changes in site conditions can affect the potential for a given species of plant to occur in an area where it has not previously been detected.
L (Low Potential for Occurrence) – There are no recent or historical records of the species occurring on the project site or its immediate vicinity, and suitable habitat for the species does not occur
on the project site or its immediate vicinity.
M (Moderate Potential for Occurrence) – There is a recent or historical record of the species on the project site or its immediate vicinity or the project is within the species range and contains
suitable habitat for the species.
H (High Potential for Occurrence) – There is both a recent or historical record of the species in, or in the immediate vicinity of, the project site and/or suitable habitat for the species occurs in, or
in the immediate vicinity of, the project site.
P (Species Present) – The species was observed on the project site at the time of the survey, or there are numerous records of the species on the project site over a period of time sufficient to estab-
lish that the species is present.
Federal
FT = Threatened
FPE = Proposed Endangered
FPT = Proposed Threatened
FC = Candidate
FD = Delisted
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
TABLE 4.4-2 SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES POTENTIALLY OCCURRING ON THE CANYON SPRINGS SUBDIVISION PROJECT SITE (CONTINUED)
4.4-17
State
SE = Endangered
ST = Threatened
SR = Rare
CSC = Species of Concern
SFPS = State Fully Protected Species
CNPS
CNPS 1A = Presumed extinct in Cali-
fornia
CNPS 1B = Rare or Endangered in Cali-
fornia and elsewhere
CNPS 2 = Rare or Endangered in Cali-
fornia, more common elsewhere
CNPS 3 = Plants about which we need
more information; a review list
CNPS 4 = Plants of limited distribution;
a watch list
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-18
ii. Jurisdictional Delineation
HEC conducted field investigations for the jurisdictional delineation on Au-
gust 30, and September 1 and 2, 2010. The jurisdictional delineation was per-
formed in accordance with the 1987 ACOE Wetland Delineation Manual3
and the Interim Regional Supplement to the Army Corps of Engineers Wet-
lands Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
(2008)4 and included collection of vegetation, soils, and hydrology data. The
delineation effort is summarized in a report, Delineation of Waters of the
U.S. Canyon Spring, Town of Truckee, #200300655, dated January 11, 2011
(included in Appendix D of this Draft EIR. 5
iii. Mule Deer Use and Migration Analysis
The April 5, 2011 survey was conducted by Foothill biologist Brian Mayerle
and consisted of a general reconnaissance level survey of the project site.
Field investigations were conducted by HEC for the use of the project site by
the Verdi subunit of the Loyalton-Truckee mule deer herd throughout the
fall of 2010 and spring of 2011. The studies involved an extensive field study
that utilized camera stations to collect detailed data of this deer herd move-
ment on the site. Staff at CDFG and Nevada Division of Wildlife (NDOW)
were also contacted throughout this period to ascertain if any updates to these
mule deer studies have taken place since the previous analysis for the project
site was prepared. In addition, the existing information received from the
3 Environmental Laboratory, 1987. “ACOE of Engineers Wetlands Delinea-
tion Manual,” Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, MS.
4 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), 2008. Interim Regional Supplement
to the ACOE of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys,
and Coast Region (Version 2.0), ed. J.S. Wakeley, R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble.
ERDC/EL TR-10-3. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development
Center.
5 These wetland boundaries were verified by the ACOE on October 11, 2011.
The previous delineation was verified by the ACOE on June 7, 2005. The current
delineation includes more riverine emergent wetlands and wet meadow than the pre-
vious delineation.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-19
CDFG was reviewed. The 2009 and 2011 mule deer reports are included in
Appendix E of this Draft EIR.
2. Setting
Based on the findings from Foothill’s April 5, 2011 and LSA’s June 8, 2011
general reconnaissance level survey, it was determined that the site conditions
were predominantly unchanged from the conditions reported in previous
analysis prepared for the project site. As a result, the following discussion of
the existing setting is based largely on the findings from the previous analysis
prepared for the project site.
The approximately 290-acre project site is predominantly undeveloped forest,
scrub, and meadow habitats. A well-developed network of unpaved roads and
trails is distributed throughout the site. This network extends into adjacent
lands on all sides of the project site. The project site is accessed by surround-
ing subdivision residents and experiences year-round unauthorized use. In the
winter, the site is used by cross-country and backcountry skiers, snowshoers,
and snowmobile users. In other seasons the project site is used by hikers,
mountain bikers, equestrians, and off-road vehicle users. The only formal
development on the project site is the Liberty Energy – California Pacific
Electric Company’s overhead high-power transmission line and associated
access road that spans the project site in a southwest-northeast orientation for
approximately 2,300 feet.
The project site is a forested area with meadows and wetlands that trend
northwesterly through the central and southern portions of the site. The site
is characterized by rolling topography that generally slopes gently downward
to the northwest along two ridges. Slopes are generally 1 to 10 percent, but
with some isolated areas exceeding 30 percent. Elevations on the site range
from approximately 5,920 feet above mean sea level (MSL) in the northwest
to 6,120 feet above MSL in the southeast.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-20
a. Plant Communities
Nomenclature for plant communities was based on A Guide to Wildlife Habi-
tats of California6 with additional information provided by A Manual of Cali-
fornia Vegetation,7 Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Commu-
nities of California,8 and Terrestrial Vegetation of California.9 The previous
analysis prepared for the project site was also referenced to describe pebble
meadows.
Plant communities occurring on the project site are described below, and in-
clude Jeffery pine, sagebrush, wet meadow, and pebble meadow. Common
plant and wildlife species observed, or expected to occur, in these communi-
ties are also noted. Figure 4.4-1 illustrates the plant communities on the pro-
ject site.
i. Jeffrey Pine
Jeffrey pine communities are distributed through the Klamath Mountains
into southwestern Oregon, across the Sierra Nevada into western Nevada,
and southward into the Transverse and Peninsular Ranges into northern Baja
California. Jeffery pine vegetation communities range in elevation from ap-
proximately 200 to 9,500 feet. The assemblage of this vegetation community
type is dependent on several site specific factors including but not limited to
climate, topography, and soil composition. Jeffrey pine (Pinus jeffreyi) is the
dominant species found in the upper canopy. Other tree species commonly
associated with Jeffrey pine communities include Ponderosa pine (P. pondero-
6 Mayer, K.E. and W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., eds., 1988. A Guide to Wildlife Hab-
itats of California. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Sacramen-
to, CA.
7 Sawyer, John O. and Todd Keeler-Wolf, 1995. A Manual of California Vege-
tation. California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA.
8 Holland, R., 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of Terrestrial Natural Commu-
nities of California. State of California. California Department of Fish and Game.
Rancho Cordova, CA.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-21
sa), sugar pine (P. lambertiana), white-fir (Abies concolor), Douglas-fir
(Pseudotsuga menziesii), lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta murrayana), incense
cedar (Calocedrus decurrens), canyon live oak (Quercus chrysolepis), Black oak
(Q. kelloggii), and quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides).
Jeffrey pine is the most common plant community on the project site, total-
ing approximately 225.65 acres. Within the Jeffery pine community, an un-
der story component is present and consists of woody shrub species, notably
bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata), mountain sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata
vaseyana) and rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus nauseosus). An herbaceous ground
layer is present and consists of mules ears (Wyethia mollis), mountain violet
(Viola purpurea), needle grass (Achnatherum sp.), and squirrel tail grass (Ely-
mus elymoides).
Because of the food value of the Jeffrey pine seeds, bark, and foliage, Jeffrey
pine communities typically provide substantial foraging habitat for wildlife.10
Species expected to use these food sources include mule deer (Odocoileus hem-
ionus), squirrels (Sciurus sp.), chipmunks (Tamias sp.), and other mammal spe-
cies. In addition, this community provides the necessary nesting cover for
several bird species such as brown creeper (Certhia americana), hairy wood-
pecker (Picoides villosus), northern flicker (Colaptes auratus), white-breasted
nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis); and Steller’s jay (Cyanocitta stelleri).
ii. Sagebrush
Sagebrush communities form a discontinuous strip along the eastern and
northeastern borders of California, occupying dry slopes and flats in eleva-
tions ranging from approximately 1,600 to 10,500 feet. Generally, a species of
sagebrush (Artemisia sp.), defines this under story layer, but often bitterbrush,
9 California Native Plant Society (CNPS), 1988. Terrestrial Vegetation of Cali-
fornia. Michael G. Barbour and Jack Major, eds., University of California, Davis.
California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA. v + 1020 pp.
10 Mayer, K.E. and W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., eds., 1988. A Guide to Wildlife
Habitats of California. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Sac-
ramento, CA.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-22
rabbitbrush, or another species of sagebrush which typically constitutes an
associate component, will dominate this vegetation community type. Tree
species may occur in low densities within this vegetation community. As
with Jeffrey pine vegetation community types, the assemblage of this vegeta-
tion community type is dependent on several site-specific factors, including
but not limited to climate, topography, and soil composition.
The sagebrush community on the project site comprises approximately 59.71
acres and is dominated by mountain sagebrush; associate shrubs include bit-
terbrush, low sagebrush (Artemisia arbuscula), and rabbitbrush. In addition, a
variety of grasses and herbaceous plant species were observed within this
community including mountain dandelion (Agoseris sp.), mules ears, larkspur
(Delphinium depauperatum), lotus (Lotus purshianus var. purshianus), common
yarrow (Achillea millefolium), and needle grass.
This community provides habitat for several game species such as pronghorn
(Antilocapra americana), sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus), and migrato-
ry deer herds. In addition, sagebrush communities are occupied by birds such
as gray flycatcher (Empidonax wrightii), magpie (Pica sp.), sage thrasher
(Orescoptes montanus), and various other songbirds and hawks; and mammals
such as ground squirrel (Spermophilus sp.), jackrabbit (Lepus sp.), kangaroo rat
(Dipodomys sp.), and sagebrush vole (Lagurus curtatus). Wildlife observed
within this community on the site includes dove (Zenaida sp.) and chipmunk.
In addition, evidence (scat and tracks) of mule deer were observed during the
field surveys.
iii. Wet Meadow
Wet meadows are distributed throughout the mountains of the Sierra Nevada
and occur within almost every forest type, including Jeffrey pine. Meadows
are areas typically dominated by herbaceous plant species such as grasses and
sedges (Carex spp.); occasionally, when water persists, willows (Salix spp.)
and/or other woody shrub species may occur. Tree species are typically low
in cover, or absent altogether. Meadows are often, but not always, jurisdic-
tional wetlands.
Match Line
Ma
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
LEGEND
Biological Study Area
Snags
Plant Communities (290.73 ac)
Big Sagebrush Series (59.71 ac)
Jeffery Pine Series (225.65 ac)
Pebble Meadow (0.70 ac)
Wet Meadow (4.67 ac)
SOURCE: Basemap - ESRI Imagery (2010); Mapping - Foothill Associates (2004); Heal Environmental Consulting (2011)
FIGURE 4.4-1
Canyon Springs Subdivision
Plant Communities
Match Line
Glen
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
0200400
FEET
I:\DCV1101\GIS\plant_comm.mxd (8/19/11)
Match Line Martis Peak Road
LEGEND
Biological Study Area
Snags
Plant Communities (290.73 ac)
Big Sagebrush Series (59.71 ac)
Jeffery Pine Series (225.65 ac)
Pebble Meadow (0.70 ac)
Wet Meadow (4.67 ac)
SOURCE: Basemap - ESRI Imagery (2010); Mapping - Foothill Associates (2004); Heal Environmental Consulting (2011)
FIGURE 4.4-1
Canyon Springs Subdivision
Plant Communities
Match Line
Glenshire Drive
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
0200400
FEET
I:\DCV1101\GIS\plant_comm.mxd (8/19/11)
Source: LSA. Basemap - ESRI Imagery (2010); Mapping - Foothill Associates (2004); Heal Environmental Consulting (2011)
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLANT COMMUNITIES
FIGURE 4.4-1
2000 400 FeetNORTH
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-25
Wet meadow habitat on the project site comprise 5.29 acres and consists of
two main systems: one in the southwestern portion of the site, and the other
in the central portion of the site. Both meadow systems are fed by off-site
perennial springs; Buck Springs recharges the meadow system in the south-
western portion of the site and an unnamed spring east of the site recharges
the meadow system in the central portion of the site. These systems have a
gentle gradient and are generally dry by mid-summer except in the upstream
areas directly influenced by the springs. This community is within the area
designated as open space.
Vegetation communities within the meadow systems on the site are depend-
ent upon prolonged saturated soil conditions. As such, the vegetation com-
munities occurring within the meadow systems on the site are composed of
those plant species which can tolerate prolonged saturated soil conditions
such as sedges, rushes (Juncus spp.), tufted hairgrass (Deschampsia cespitosa),
meadow barley (Hordeum brachyantherum), Richardson’s muhly (Muhlenber-
gia richardsonis), Kentucky blue grass (Poa pratensis), Parish’s yampah (Per-
ideridia parishii), toad-lily (Montia chamissoi), monkey flower (Mimulus primu-
loides), clover (Trifolium spp.), camas (Camassia quamash), and Oregon check-
erbloom (Sidalcea oregana).
Seasonal wetland communities provide foraging habitat and a temporary wa-
ter source for a wide variety of wildlife. Wildlife typically occurring in this
community includes invertebrates, amphibians, birds, and mammals. Fauna
similar to those observed, or expected to occur, in the surrounding communi-
ties on the site are expected to occur in the seasonal wetland communities.
iv. Pebble Meadow
Pebble meadows are a habitat type that occurs on and in the vicinity of the
project site and appears to be uncommon. This community is not formally
defined but was described in the previous analysis done for the project site
and is recognized by the local professional community. Precise assessments of
the plant community composition and the relative rarity of this habitat type
have not been conducted, but it is possible that this community would meet
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-26
the criteria of a sensitive habitat. Plants observed in the pebble meadows on
the project site include balsam-root (Balsamhoriza hookeri var. lanata), Parish’s
yampah, knotweed (Polygonum californicum), a small rayless daisy (Erigeron
sp.), Sierra onion (Allium campanulatum), one sided bluegrass (Poa secunda),
Bridge’s gilia (Gilia leptalea), mountain violet (Viola purpurea) one spike oat
grass (Danthonia unispicata), and death camas (Zigadenus venenosus var. vene-
nosus). This habitat may also support a locally rare plant species, wild buck-
wheat (Eriogonum ovalifolium).11 This community is within the area desig-
nated as open space.
b. Snags
Snags are standing dead trees that provide important habitat features for many
species, especially birds. These microhabitats provide feeding habitat for
woodpeckers and nesting and roosting habitat for cavity nesters, including
owls, woodpeckers, and bats. Approximately 72 snags occur on the project
site. There are also a few large, overly mature trees in the area that could
eventually die and become snags. The locations of snags were observed on
the site and are shown in Figure 4.4-1.
c. Aquatic Resources
Aquatic resources on the project include the wet meadow community de-
scribed above and several ephemeral and intermittent drainages. The hydrol-
ogy of ephemeral drainages is typically driven by surface water (i.e. runoff),
while intermittent drainages also include some component of subsurface dis-
charge. In the Sierra Nevada, peak flows coincide with snowmelt and rain-
storm events. Vegetation occurring in these seasonal creeks is typically lim-
ited. However, emergent and riparian vegetation may occur along the shore-
line of and adjacent to these communities, respectively. On the project site,
ephemeral and intermittent drainage comprise 1.84 acres, of which, 0.65-acre
supports wetlands. The aquatic resources on site are within the area designat-
ed as open space.
11 Adrian Juncosa, PhD. Botany, President EcoSynthesis Scientific & Regulato-
ry Services, personal communication with LSA staff, June 21, 2011.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-27
d. Wildlife Corridors
Wildlife corridors are used for both movement and migration purposes.
Movement corridors are traditional routes used by wildlife to travel within
their home range, and allow them to access food, cover, and water on a daily
and seasonal basis. Movement corridors typically provide wildlife with un-
disturbed cover and foraging habitat and are generally composed of several
trails following topographic features such as drainages, ridgelines, and the
bases of major topographic slopes or prominent hills in contiguous spans of
forested, riparian, riverine, and woodland communities. The width of
movement corridors varies depending on the topography. Migration corri-
dors apply to wildlife that travel annually between ranges in the summer and
winter. Movement and migration corridors are an essential element of home
ranges of a variety of wildlife, including the Verdi subunit of the Loyalton-
Truckee mule deer herd. This subunit is known to utilize the project site and
surrounding area for migration purposes. Wildlife corridors are within the
project area designated as open space.
e. Special-Status Species and Sensitive Habitats
LSA reviewed the specific habitats required by each species listed in Table
4.4-1, and the specific habitats and habitat conditions present on the project
site. Based on this evaluation, LSA determined the likelihood of each species
listed in Table 4.4-2 to occur on the project site. Special status species that
were observed on the project site, or determined to potentially occur on the
site based on availability of suitable habitat or other factors such as nearby
occurrences (i.e. at least a “Low” potential for occurrence in Table 4.4-2), are
discussed more fully below. Species determined unlikely to occur on the pro-
ject site (based on these same factors, or negative survey result), are also doc-
umented in Table 4.4-2, and are not discussed further in this report.
i. Special-Status Wildlife
The following special-status wildlife species listed in Table 4.4-2 were deter-
mined to have the potential to occur on the project site.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-28
a) Sierra Nevada Red Fox
The Sierra Nevada red fox (Vulpes vulpes necator) is a State threatened species;
it has no federal status. This species ranges from the Cascades down to the
Sierra Nevadas and utilizes a variety of forested habitats in the subalpine and
alpine regions usually interspersed with meadows, barren rocky areas, or al-
pine fell fields.12 This species uses dense vegetation and rocky areas for cover
and den sites.
The project site does not contain densely vegetated or rocky areas that Sierra
Nevada red fox typically utilize for cover and denning, but the forested habi-
tats on the project could potentially provide foraging habitat for this species.
However, the relatively high level of current human disturbance would likely
discourage this species from using the project site. In addition, while there
are CNDDB records for this species in the vicinity of the project site, the
majority of the records for this species in the central part of the state are lo-
cated much further to the west. Considering these factors, there is low poten-
tial for Sierra Nevada red fox to occur on the project site.
b) Bats (including Silver-haired Bat)
Several bat species (e.g. Myotis sp.), including the silver-haired bat (La-
sionycteris noctivagans), could potentially occur on the project site. Bat habi-
tat consists of foraging habitat and both day and night roosts; certain day
roosts are also used as maternity and winter roosts. Bats are nocturnal mam-
mals, leaving day roost around dusk to forage. Day roosts are typically in
enclosed areas that provide thermal protection for bats, such as caves, build-
ings, crevices or openings in bridges, tree cavities, and sloughing bark. Night
roosts may be located in more open areas (e.g. the underside of a bridge deck)
where bats can rest while digesting their food. The majority of North Amer-
ican bats feed on insects, which are captured on the wing using echolocation.
12 Zeiner D.C., W.F. Loudenslayer Jr., K.E., Mayer, and M.White, eds. 1988.
California’s Wildlife Vol. III: Mammals. State of California: The Resource Agency.
Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-29
The Jeffrey pine community and snags on the project site provide potential
habitat for tree-roosting bats, and bats could forage over the wet meadow and
sagebrush habitats. Bats are most susceptible to disturbance at roost sites dur-
ing the breeding season, due to presence of pregnant females and non-volant
pups, and during the winter when many bats enter torpor. During the rest of
the year, many bat species are migrating or otherwise less likely to be strong-
ly tied to roost sites and, therefore, less susceptible to disturbance. The near-
est CNDDB record for bats is for the silver-haired bat, approximately nine
miles northwest of the project site, but the lack of records is likely due to a
lack of survey effort rather than an indication of the distribution of bats. No
bats or sign of bats (e.g. urine staining, guano) were observed during site sur-
veys, but due to the presence of suitable roosting and foraging habitat, there is
a moderate potential for bats to occur on the project site.
c) Bald Eagle
The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is a State endangered species. This
species was previously federally threatened, but has been delisted. Bald eagles
forage in large bodies of water including oceans, lakes, and rivers. This spe-
cies feeds primarily on fish but will also eat small mammals, waterfowl, sea-
birds, and carrion. Bald eagles build large stick nests in tall trees or on cliffs,
usually within one mile of water.
No suitable nesting or wintering habitat is present on the project site, but the
potential exists for bald eagles to forage on the project site. The CNDDB
includes one record for bald eagles in the vicinity of the project site, approxi-
mately four miles to the north near the north shore of Boca Reservoir. No
bald eagles were observed on or near the project site during previous surveys,
but since marginal foraging habitat is present, there is a low potential for bald
eagle to occur on the project site.
d) Northern Goshawk
The northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) is a State species of special concern;
it has no federal status. This species nests in many of the mountain ranges in
California including the North Coast Ranges, the Sierra Nevada, Klamath,
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-30
Cascade, and Warner Mountains, and prefers middle and higher elevations.
The northern goshawk nests in coniferous forest, usually on north slopes near
water, and is extremely defensive of nesting territory.
The lack of north-facing slopes and permanent water precludes goshawks
from nesting on the project site, but the Jeffrey pine community provides
potential foraging habitat for this species. There are several CNDDB records
for goshawk in the vicinity of the project site; the two nearest records are
within five miles to the south near Martis Peak. Due to the lack of suitable
nesting habitat, there is low potential for goshawk to occur on the project
site.
e) Willow Flycatcher
The willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii) is a State endangered species; it has
no federal status. Willow flycatchers inhabit low, dense thickets of willows
along the edges of wet meadows, ponds, or other slow moving or still water
sources above 2,000-foot elevation. Willow flycatchers require the dense
thickets for foraging and nesting.
The plant communities on the project site do not provide suitable nesting
habitat for willow flycatcher. However, suitable nesting habitat is located
south of the project site at Buck Springs and to the west near Glenshire Lake,
and this species could potentially occur on the project site. The nearest
CNDDB record for willow flycatcher is approximately one mile northeast of
the project on a densely wooded island in the Truckee River; two more
CNDDB records are located approximately four miles southwest of the pro-
ject site near the Martis Creek National Recreation Area. No willow fly-
catchers were observed on the project site during any of the surveys. Since
potential nesting habitat is present in the vicinity of the project site and this
species is known from the local vicinity, there is a moderate potential for wil-
low flycatcher to occur on the project site.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-31
f) Yellow Warbler
The yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia brewsteri) is a State species of special
concern; it has no federal status. Yellow warblers typically nest in riparian
habitats and prefer willows, cottonwoods, aspens, sycamores, and alders for
both nesting and foraging, but will also nest in montane shrubbery.
The project site provides marginal nesting habitat for yellow warbler and
more suitable nesting habitat occurs south of the project site at Buck Springs
and to the west near Glenshire Lake. The closest CNDDB record for yellow
warbler is approximately eight miles to the west near Donner Lake. This
species was not observed on the project site during any of the surveys. Since
potential nesting habitat is present on the site and in the vicinity, and this
species is known from the local vicinity, there is a moderate potential for yel-
low warbler to occur on the project site.
g) Nesting Birds
In addition to the yellow warbler, discussed above, many bird species could
potentially nest on the project site. Although many of these bird species do
not have any special status designation, nesting birds, the nests, and eggs are
protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the State Fish and Game
Code, as described above in Section A.1, Regulatory Framework, Special-
Status Species. Suitable nesting habitat occurs in both the Jeffrey pine and
sagebrush communities on the project site; snags also provide potential habi-
tat for cavity-nesting birds. As a result, there is a high potential for birds to
nest on the project site.
h) Mule Deer
The mule deer does not have a special status designation; however, as noted in
their May 23, 2011 correspondence with the Town (included in Appendix B
of this Draft EIR), the CDFG is particularly concerned about the impacts to
habitat (movement) and migration corridors of the Verdi subunit of the Loy-
alton-Truckee mule deer herd as a result of residential development and recre-
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-32
ational use in the project area.13 As noted in “Section B.2 Setting, Wildlife
Corridors,” this mule deer herd is known to utilize the project site and sur-
rounding area.
In general, mule deer tend to confine their daily movements to discrete home
ranges, using the same winter and summer home ranges in consecutive years.
Mule deer disperse by moving beyond the home range to distances of up to
five miles. This movement results in the establishment of a new home range.
Seasonal migrations from higher elevations (summer ranges) to lower winter
ranges are associated, in part, with decreasing temperatures, severe snow-
storms, and snow depths that reduce mobility and food supply. Deep snows
ultimately limit useable range to a fraction of the total range.
The Verdi subunit of the Loyalton-Truckee mule deer herd migrates annually
from Nevada along the Truckee River and disperses into the Martis Valley,
located southeast of the Town, in the spring season. Critical fawning habitat
for this deer herd occurs near Dry Lake, located approximately 1.5 miles
south of the project site, and near Lookout Mountain, located approximately
7 miles southwest of the project site. After fawning, this deer herd leaves the
fawning habitat and disperses into the Martis Valley to forage prior to migrat-
ing back into Nevada. Portions of the deer herd must cross the Truckee Riv-
er and Interstate 80 in order to disperse into the Martis Valley in the spring
season and migrate back to Nevada in the autumn. According to CDFG in
their 1988 Loyalton Truckee Deer Herd Plan, Update, the majority of the Can-
yon Springs site is located within a major migration corridor of the Loyalton-
Truckee deer herd.14 However, recent data suggests that only a few individu-
als use the site as a corridor or for forage at any given time.
13 Jeff Drongesen, Environmental Program Manager, CDFG. Written corre-
spondence to Denyelle Nishimori, Associate, Town of Truckee, May 23, 2011.
14 CDFG, 1988. Loyalton Truckee Deer Herd Plan, Update. CDFG, Region II,
Rancho Cordova, CA.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-33
In recent years, the deer population declines in the Northern/Central Sierra
have been substantial.15 Deer populations may be at the lowest levels in the
last 50 years and perhaps no one knows which factors are most important.16
The various causes for the reduction in deer populations are likely from habi-
tat loss, fires, development, dams, vehicle collisions, and both grazing and
overgrazing by introduced livestock. Winter range and key winter range
have been negatively impacted by the Martis Creek fire, development, and
livestock grazing. Historic overgrazing has led to the replacement of native
grasses by sagebrush.17 Bitterbrush, found on the project site, is the most im-
portant browse (graze) species, and fawn survival is closely correlated to
browse production. Bitterbrush leader growth is correlated with annual pre-
cipitation.18 Periods of dry weather can lead to both decreased browse pro-
duction and more frequent fires, both of which are unpredictable and nega-
tively impact the deer populations.
The protection and enhancement of key mule deer winter, foraging, migrato-
ry, and fawning habitat are vital to their long-term survival. As illustrated in
the 2009 and 2011 mule deer reports, there is a high potential for this mule
deer herd to utilize the project site and surrounding area for foraging, move-
ment and migration. However, the critical fawning habitat for this deer herd
occurs in two distinct locations approximately 1.5 miles south and approxi-
mately 7 miles southwest of the project site; therefore, there is a low potential
for fawning habitat for this mule deer herd on the project site.
15 CDFG, 1998. Report to the Fish and Game Commission: An Assessment of
Mule and Black-tailed Deer Habitats and Populations in California
16 Personal communication between Jeff Finn, California Department of Fish
and Game Biologist and staff at Foothill Associates, July 12, 2004.
17 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Tahoe National Forest, 1968. Habitat
Management Plan: Loyalton-Truckee Deer Herd Unit.
18 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Tahoe National Forest, 1968. Habitat
Management Plan: Loyalton-Truckee Deer Herd Unit.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-34
ii. Special-Status Plants
Of the special status plants in Table 4.4-1, 13 plants were determined to have
the potential to occur on the project site based on the presence of suitable
habitat. As described above in Section B.1, Methods, Field Surveys, LSA
conducted focused survey for these special-status plants in June and July 2011,
which is during the normal blooming period for these species when plants are
most easily identifiable. In addition, for Plumas ivesia, since there are several
records for this species near the project site, LSA monitored a nearby popula-
tion of Plumas ivesia to determine when this species was blooming, and then
scheduled the focused survey on the project site during the known 2011
blooming period for this species.
Since the 2011 focused plant surveys on the project site were appropriately
timed and resulted in negative findings, and considering that none of the spe-
cial-status plants were observed during previous focused surveys of the project
site in 2004 by Foothill Associates, Inc. and in 1990 by Eco-Analysts, these
plant species are not expected to occur on the project site.
a) Mosses
Three mosses could potentially occur on the project site: Bolander’s bruchia
(Bruchia bolanderi) – CNPS List 2, Broad-nerved hump moss (Meesia uliginosa)
– CNPS List 2, and three-ranked hump moss (Meesia triquetra) – CNPS List 4.
Bolander’s bruchia occurs in meadows and seeps; the broad-nerved and three-
ranked hump moss occur in bogs and fens.
The wet meadow and other wetlands areas on the project site, being seasonal,
are only marginally suitable for these mosses, especially the broad-nerved and
three-ranked hump moss which, as stated previously, occur in bogs and fens.
Mosses were not included in the focused plant surveys conducted in June and
July, 2011. Since only marginal habitat is present on the project site, there is
a low potential for these three mosses to occur.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-35
iii. Sensitive Habitats
Sensitive habitats that occur on the project site include wet meadows, pebble
meadows, and migration corridors. Wet meadows and pebble meadows are
described above in Section B.2, Setting, Plant Communities. While a wildlife
movement and migration corridor is not any one particular habitat such as a
wet meadow or a pebble meadow, the Town recognizes wildlife movement
and migration corridors as sensitive resources as identified in the Town of
Truckee 2025 General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element Goal
COS-4, Policies P4.1 and P4.2 described above in Section A.3, Regulatory
Framework, Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan. As described above in Sec-
tion B.2, Setting, Wildlife Corridors, the project site functions as a wildlife
corridor for the Verdi subunit of the Loyalton-Truckee mule deer herd.
These habitats are within the area designated as open space.
f. Jurisdictional Waters
Jurisdictional waters, as referenced in this document (and as discussed above
in Section A.2, Regulatory Framework, Jurisdictional Waters), include wet-
lands and non-wetland waters potentially subject to regulation by the ACOE
as waters of the U.S. pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA and/or the
RWQCB as waters of the State pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA or the
PCWQCA. These areas, as well as any associated riparian vegetation, may
also be subject to regulation by CDFG pursuant to Sections 1600-1616 of the
CCR. Unless otherwise noted, waters of the State are identical to waters of
the U.S.
A total of 7.78 acres of jurisdictional waters occur on the project site, as de-
scribed below and shown in Figure 4.4-2.19 These waters are within the area
designated as open space.
19 These wetland boundaries were verified by the ACOE on October 11, 2011.
The previous delineation was verified by the ACOE on June 7, 2005. The current
delineation includes more riverine emergent wetlands and wet meadow than the pre-
vious delineation.
Match Line
Ma
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
LEGEND
Biological Study Area
Jurisdictional Waters
Drainages (1.84 ac)
Riverine Wetlands (0.065 ac)
Wet Meadow (5.29 ac)
SOURCE: Basemap - ESRI Imagery (2010); Mapping - Heal Environmental Consulting (2011)
FIGURE 4.4-2
Canyon Springs Subdivision
Jurisdictional Waters
Match Line
M
a
r
t
i
s
P
e
a
k
R
o
a
d
Glen
s
h
i
r
e
D
r
i
v
e
0 200 400
FEET
I:\DCV1101\GIS\juris_wats.mxd (8/22/11)
Match Line Martis Peak Road
LEGEND
Biological Study Area
Jurisdictional Waters
Drainages (1.84 ac)
Riverine Wetlands (0.065 ac)
Wet Meadow (5.29 ac)
SOURCE: Basemap - ESRI Imagery (2010); Mapping - Heal Environmental Consulting (2011)
FIGURE 4.4-2
Canyon Springs Subdivision
Jurisdictional Waters
Match Line
Martis Peak RoadGlenshire Drive
0 200 400
FEET
I:\DCV1101\GIS\juris_wats.mxd (8/22/11)
Source: LSA. Basemap - ESRI Imagery (2010); Mapping - Heal Environmental Consulting (2011)
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
FIGURE 4.4-2
JURISDICTIONAL WATERS
3000 600 FeetNORTH
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-37
i. Wetlands
HEC determined that 5.94 acres of wetlands are present on the project, con-
sisting of 5.29 acres of wet meadow and 0.65-acre of riverine emergent wet-
lands. These wetlands areas are primarily associated with the wet meadow
habitat in the southwest and central portions of the project site; the riverine
emergent wetlands occur in three small areas along the primary (intermittent)
drainage in the central portion of the project site.
ii. Non-wetland Waters
HEC determined that 1.84-acre of non-wetland waters (“other waters”) are
present on the project site. Non-wetland waters are associated with the nu-
merous ephemeral and intermittent drainages on the project site. These
drainages convey mostly surface runoff and snow melt, but also include some
groundwater recharge.
Based on the findings from the HEC delineation, included as Appendix D of
this Draft EIR, the wetlands and non-wetland waters on the project site total
7.78 acres. These waters are tributary to the Truckee River and subject to
regulation by the ACOE as waters of the U.S. These areas would also likely
be subject to regulation by the RWQCB and CDFG.
C. Standards of Significance
The proposed project would have a significant impact with regard to biologi-
cal resources if it would:
¤ Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modi-
fications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special sta-
tus species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser-
vice.
¤ Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensi-
tive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-38
regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US
Fish and Wildlife Service.
¤ Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as de-
fined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited
to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hy-
drological interruption, or other means.
¤ Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or mi-
gratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or mi-
gratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites.
¤ Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological re-
sources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.
¤ Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, region-
al, or state habitat conservation plan.
D. Impact Discussion
This section provides a discussion of the project impacts to biological re-
sources that may occur with implementation of the proposed project. The
determination of impacts is based on the biological resources present, or rea-
sonably likely to be present, on the project site as described herein.
Features of the proposed project that could impact biological resources in-
clude the proposed construction of 185 residential homes, a recreational use
area, associated roadways (including four drainage crossings), the 4.5-mile
publically accessible trail system comprised of 2-foot-wide soft surface trails,
and 12-foot-wide gravel trails, which would also provide utility access, and
water quality retention ponds. In addition, the project would also include the
installation of approximately 2,600 linear feet of new off-site water mains ad-
jacent to existing roadways in the Glenshire residential area located to the
west of the project site.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-39
For purposes of the impacts discussion, an average building footprint of 2,500
square feet per residential lot was used. After including the impact footprints
from the internal roadways, publically accessible trail system, and retention
basins, the project would result in the removal of approximately 27.92 acres
of Jeffrey pine community, removal of approximately 7.25 acres of sagebrush
community, and removal of approximately 26 snags.
The 2-foot-wide soft-surface trails would be located primarily on existing
trails or roads, and would not be improved where the alignment crosses the
wet meadow or drainages; however, as shown on Figure 4.13-1 in Section
4.13, Public Services and Recreation, of this Draft EIR, footbridges would be
placed at these crossings. The footbridges would be treated wood style bridg-
es with single wood piles spaced about every 8 feet, and would be 4 to 5 feet
wide with a low wood curb. The potential impacts to upland vegetation from
this soft-surface trail feature are determined to be negligible. However, the
installation of the wood piles would impact approximately 78 square feet of
wetlands and non-wetland waters.
An additional removal of approximately 76.68 acres of Jeffrey pine and sage-
brush communities would occur within the residential and recreation area (in
addition to the estimated 2,500-square-foot building envelopes), and would be
subject to indirect impacts due to the increased human presence. On individ-
ual housing lots, the introduction of pets, alteration of native vegetation, etc.,
would decrease the overall value of these habitats and could discourage wild-
life from using these areas.
Figures 4.4-3 and 4.4-4 show the proposed project overlaid on the plant com-
munities mapping and jurisdictional waters, respectively.
1. Project Impacts
The following section evaluates the project impacts by comparing the stand-
ards of significance thresholds to the various project features.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-40
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modi-
fications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special sta-
tus species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser-
vice.
Implementation of the project would result in removal of approximately
27.92 acres of Jeffrey pine community, approximately 7.25 acres of sagebrush
community, and removal of approximately 26 snags. These communities
provide potential habitat for Sierra Nevada red fox, goshawk, willow fly-
catcher, and yellow warbler, and removal of this habitat could impact these
species if they are present on the project site during construction. An addi-
tional approximately 76.68 acres of these combined communities would occur
within the residential and recreation lots, subject to increased human pres-
ence, and could result in this habitat becoming less suitable for these species.
Implementation of the proposed project would not directly impact the wet
meadow community or the riverine emergent wetlands on the project site,
which could potentially support Bolander’s bruchia, broad-nerved hump
moss, and three-ranked hump moss. Therefore, impacts to these species
would be less than significant.
Impacts to Sierra Nevada red fox could include loss of potential foraging habi-
tat and potentially direct impacts to individuals. Due to the vast amount of
Jeffrey pine and sagebrush communities present in the region compared to
the amount of these communities that would be removed or degraded on the
project site, the loss of potential foraging habitat for Sierra Nevada red fox
would be less than significant. There is also a very low potential for the pro-
ject to impact denning habitat for Sierra Nevada red fox. The potential im-
pacts to individuals or denning habitat would be significant.
Impacts to northern goshawk and willow flycatcher could include loss of for-
aging or migration habitat. Due to the vast areas of Jeffrey pine and sage-
brush communities present in the region compared to the amount of these
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
FIGURE 4.4-3
PLANT COMMUNITIES AND THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN
Source: ESRI Imagery, 2010; Foothill Associates, 2004; Heal Environmental Consulting, 2011; LSA Associates, Inc., 2012.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
FIGURE 4.4-4
JURISDICTIONAL WATERS AND THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN
Source: ESRI Imagery, 2010; Heal Environmental Consulting, 2011; LSA Associates, Inc., 2012.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-43
communities that would be removed or degraded on the project site, the loss
of habitat for these species would be less than significant.
Impacts to yellow warbler could include loss of foraging habitat, and poten-
tially disturbance of active nests. Due to the vast areas of Jeffrey pine and
sagebrush communities present in the region compared to the amount of
these communities that would be removed or degraded on the project site,
and considering the project site provides only marginal nesting habitat, the
loss of habitat for this species would be less than significant. However, the
potential disturbance of active nests would be significant.
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensi-
tive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, reg-
ulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish
and Wildlife Service.
Sensitive plant communities on the project site include the wet meadow and
pebble meadow. As previously discussed the Town recognizes wildlife
movement and migration corridors as sensitive resources. Impacts to wildlife
movement and migration corridors are discussed below under Threshold (d)
below.
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in removal of, or
land development on the sensitive plant communities on the project site. The
project could indirectly impact these communities through modification of
the hydrology that supports these areas. Consistent with Town Develop-
ment Code Section 18.38.040.A.2.a, all proposed building envelopes would be
outside of the Town-required 50-foot setback from designated 100-year flood-
plains for the two blue line waterways.20 For the proposed project, private
housing lot boundaries are proposed within 50-feet of designated 100-year
floodplain, but as recommended by CDFG, a minimum 50-foot setback to
building envelopes would be maintained along the designated 100-year flood-
20 Town of Truckee Municipal Code, Title 18, Development Code, Chapter
18.38, Lake and River/Stream Corridor Development, Section 18.38.040.A.2.a – River
and Stream Development Standards.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-44
plain and all on-site ephemeral drainages. Furthermore, as recommended by
CDFG, the project includes a 100-foot setback from private housing lots to
the main drainage and with the exception of ten housing lots (122 to 131),
which would have a minimum 50-foot setback from the building envelopes to
Buck Spring, the project includes a 100-foot setback from private housing lots
to all wet meadows.21
Through implementation of these setbacks, and by preserving 176.17 acres
that primarily include the on-site wet meadow and pebble meadow communi-
ties within the future Canyon Springs Home Owner’s Association-owned and
maintained open space/common area, the project would avoid encroachment
into the wet meadows. Accordingly, the project would minimize the effects
to upland surface hydrology supporting the wet meadow community by lim-
iting the area of impervious surface and associated runoff which can result in
erosion, sedimentation, and increased pollutants. In addition, at the four lo-
cations where vehicular roadways would cross drainages, the project’s clear-
span bridges would avoid any impacts to the drainages and wet meadows lo-
cated downstream of the crossings. Therefore, direct effects (i.e. removal) to
sensitive plant communities resulting from the proposed project would not
occur. The proposed project would result in minor indirect impacts to wet
meadows through modification of surface hydrology that supports these areas
due to the introduction of impervious surfaces; however, as a result of the
project design features described above, this impact would be less than signifi-
cant and no mitigation measures are required.
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as de-
fined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited
to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hy-
drological interruption, or other means.
Approximately 5.94 acres of wetlands occur on the project site. Implementa-
tion of the project would result in a minimal amount of fill being placed in
wetlands on the project site during installation of the wood piles for the pe-
21 Jeff Drongesen, Environmental Program Manager, CDFG. Written corre-
spondence to Denyelle Nishimori, Associate, Town of Truckee, May 23, 2011.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-45
destrian trail footbridges. Of the nine footbridges shown in Figure 4.13-1 in
Section 4.13, Public Services and Recreation, only three of the bridges would
cross at the wet meadows, resulting in approximately 54 square feet of impact
to wetlands. An additional five footbridges would cross ephemeral and in-
termittent drainages, resulting in approximately 24 square feet of impact to
non-wetland waters. One of the footbridges, located near the southeast cor-
ner of the project, would not cross jurisdictional waters. At the four loca-
tions where vehicular roadways would cross drainages, the project’s clear-span
bridges would avoid any impacts to the drainages. In addition, as described
above, the project includes a 100-foot setback from private housing lots to the
main drainage and, with the exception of ten housing lots (122 to 131) which
would have a minimum 50-foot setback from the building envelopes to Buck
Spring, the project includes a 100-foot setback from private housing lots to all
wet meadows. Therefore, direct impacts (e.g. removal) to wetlands from the
proposed project would be limited to the piles from the footbridges. The
impacts to wetlands, while minimal, would be significant.
The project could indirectly impact these wetlands through modification of
the hydrology that supports these areas. As described above, the project in-
cludes a 100-foot setback from private housing lots to the main drainage and
with the exception of ten housing lots (122 to 131), which would have a min-
imum 50-foot setback from the building envelopes to Buck Spring; the project
includes a 100-foot setback from private housing lots to all wet meadows.
Furthermore, the project would preserve within the future Canyon Springs
Home Owner’s Association Home Owner’s Association owned and main-
tained open space/common area, the 176.17 acres that primarily include the
on-site wetlands. Therefore, the project would minimize the effects to surface
hydrology supporting these areas by limiting the area of impervious surface
and associated runoff which can result in erosion, sedimentation, and in-
creased pollutants. Still, the proposed project would result in minor indirect
impacts to wetlands through modification of surface hydrology that supports
these areas due to the introduction of impervious surfaces; however, as a re-
sult of the project design features described above, this impact would be less
than significant and no mitigation measures are required.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-46
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or mi-
gratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or mi-
gratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites.
The Jeffrey pine and sagebrush communities, including snags, provide poten-
tial nesting habitat for numerous bird species. The removal of approximately
27.92 acres of Jeffrey pine community and approximately 7.25 acres of sage-
brush community, including removal of approximately 26 snags, could result
in disturbance to active nests. This impact would be significant.
The snags and mature trees in the Jeffrey pine community on the project site
provide potential roost sites for bats. The removal of approximately 26 snags
and approximately 27.92 acres of the on-site Jeffrey pine community could
result in the loss of bat roosts. In addition, approximately 76.68 acres of these
combined communities would occur within the proposed residential lots and
recreation area subject to increased human presence, and could result in this
habitat becoming less suitable for bats. This impact would be significant.
Bats could also forage over the wet meadow and sagebrush habitat on the pro-
ject site. Since the project would not result in the loss of wet meadow habitat
and would result in only minimal loss of sagebrush habitat compared the
quantity of this habitat present in the region, impacts to foraging habitat for
bats would be less than significant.
As discussed in the various reports that have been prepared for the project
site, it is well documented that the Verdi subunit of the Loyalton-Truckee
mule deer herd utilize the project site and surrounding area for foraging
movement, migration, and the critical fawning habitat for this deer herd oc-
curs approximately 1.5 miles south and approximately seven miles southwest
of the project site. Furthermore, there is no direct evidence that deer use the
site for critical winter habitat or that known major migratory routes (i.e. mi-
gration in substantial numbers) for this mule deer herd or other important
migratory animals in the region exist within the project site. While the
CDFG, in cooperation with NDOW, began conducting long-range studies on
this mule deer herd in the fall of 2009, the first set of data will not be available
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-47
until 2012 (as of this writing, the data has been collected but not yet com-
piled) and the results of their study determining how this mule deer herd use
the project site is unknown.22 According to the CDFG, impacts resulting
from residential development and recreational use are currently the biggest
concern for the future of this deer herd.23 Accordingly, implementation of
the proposed project could result in a disturbance to the Verdi subunit of the
Loyalton-Truckee mule deer herd. The following disturbances would result
in a potentially significant impact:
¤ Temporary disturbances in the form of noise, dust, etc. during project
construction;
¤ The direct loss of habitat for movement, foraging and migration as it is
converted to other land uses; and
¤ Long-term disturbances in the form of increased human activity, vehicu-
lar and bicycle traffic, equestrian use, and the presence of dogs.
Land development related construction impacts would be phased and most
construction phases would last approximately 18 to 24 months, but some may
be as long as 24 to 30 months. While some phases may be under construction
simultaneously, the entire project site would not be under construction at the
same time. While primarily corridor linear-type improvements, project infra-
structure construction, including approximately 15,976 linear feet of road-
way, on-site utilities, retention ponds and 2,610 linear feet of off-site utilities
installation, would span an eight-year period. In general, all construction
staging would occur within the project boundaries with the exception of utili-
ties upgrades per the Truckee-Donner Public Utilities District (water) re-
quirements. Subsequent to site preparation, buildout of the future homes is
anticipated to take 20 or more years. There would be adequate undisturbed
areas for wildlife throughout the 20-year buildout period for project comple-
22 Sara Holm, Associate Wildlife Biologist (Nevada and Placer County), CA
Dept of Fish & Game. Written correspondence to Denyelle Nishimori, Associate,
Town of Truckee, July 26, 2010.
23 Jeff Drongesen, Environmental Program Manager, CDFG. Written corre-
spondence to Denyelle Nishimori, Associate, Town of Truckee, May 23, 2011.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-48
tion; therefore, the prolonged construction impacts to wildlife would be less
than significant and no mitigation measures are required.
The proposed project includes design features that would minimize impacts
to the wildlife corridors. The proposed project would implement Rural Sub-
urban clustered development consistent with Town of Truckee 2025 General
Plan Land Use Policy P7.3 and includes the preservation of approximately
176 acres of public open space and natural habitat (which equals about 60 per-
cent of the total project site). The proposed open space would link to open
space adjacent to the project site and would be preserved within the future
Canyon Springs Home Owner’s Association-owned and maintained open
space/common area, to provide a permanent wildlife corridor free of devel-
opment.
The project provides minimum 50-foot setbacks to the 100-year floodplains of
on-site drainages to avoid encroachment into the wildlife corridors on the
project site and includes the construction of clear-span bridges at the four
drainage crossings. Bridges would be built to ensure that the undercrossing is
of sufficient height to allow for safe passage of wildlife.
The project would restore deteriorated natural areas on the project site by
replanting native Jeffery pine saplings on the approximately 7-acre portion of
the project site that was the location of a previous fire. In addition, native
perennial grasses and bitterbrush (high quality foraging) would be planted on
the areas damaged by unauthorized public uses of the property (e.g. off-road
vehicle and motorcycles). Both restoration efforts would improve the open
space habitat for the mule deer herd, as well as other wildlife.
Vehicular roadways would not exceed maximum speed design of 25 miles per
hour. Roadway signage for deer crossing warnings would be posted on-site.
Furthermore, signage would provide users of the proposed 4.5-mile publically
accessible trail network with educational information regarding the qualities
of the natural characteristics of the project site—both biological and ecologi-
cal. Trail signage would include trail use protocol to ensure user safety and
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-49
the protection of wildlife and the natural habitat. Flora and fauna education,
seasonal condition warnings, and other relevant information depending on
the trail would be included. Equestrian uses would not be expected to impact
biological resources, as horses do not pose a threat to deer. Other trail use
protocol would include informing the public that dogs must be under both
immediate voice and visual control (but in support of wildlife, dog leashes are
recommended May through October), and that no motorized use of the trails
by off-road vehicles (e.g. dirt bikes and snowmobiles) would be permitted.
Dogs under voice and visual control would not be expected to impact on-site
deer or create a dog-at-large-issue. See Figure 4.13-1 in Section 4.13 of this
Draft EIR for a representative example of trail signs proposed for the project
site.
All exterior lighting would be low level illumination and would be shielded
(downward facing) to minimize light spill, glare and reflection, and to main-
tain dark skies.
Therefore, project impacts to the foraging, movement and the critical fawning
habitat of the Verdi subunit of the Loyalton-Truckee mule would be less than
significant and no mitigation measures are required.
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological re-
sources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.
The Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan Land Use, Community Character and
Conservation and Open Space Elements includes goals and associated policies
that are applicable to biological resources, as described above in Section A.3,
Regulatory Framework, Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan. The goals reflect
the means by which the built environment should protect significant wildlife
habitat and sensitive biological resources, and maintain biodiversity, respec-
tively.
The project site supports wildlife habitat and corridors, and sensitive biologi-
cal resources such as wet meadows and pebble meadows. The project site also
supports a myriad of wildlife and plant species as described throughout this
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-50
section. Implementation of the proposed project could impact the biological
resources on the project site and reduce biodiversity. As described in Chap-
ter 3, Project Description, of this Draft EIR, one of the objectives of the pro-
ject is to “Protect open space areas that serve as native habitat and wildlife
corridors.” The project aims to integrate residential and recreation compo-
nents with surrounding residential developments on a site comprised of in-
formal trails, native habitat, and wildlife resources. The project would in-
clude approximately 176 acres, or 60 percent of the 290-acre site, of connected
public open space and natural habitat. The public open space would be pre-
served within the future Canyon Springs Home Owner’s Association-owned
and maintained open space/common area. The residential lots would be lo-
cated to the north and south of the proposed public open space that would
serve as a wildlife corridor.
Housing lots are designed to meet the Rural Suburban cluster requirements
(i.e. groupings of 10 to 30 dwellings separated by connected open space areas
or greenways on Residential [0.5 to 1 units/acre] land use designations pe-
ripheral to Town core, but generally not on sites within the rural fringe).
The housing lots would connect with the project’s 4.5-mile publically accessi-
ble trail system and surrounding open space while providing setback buffers
between future homes and environmentally-sensitive areas such as wet mead-
ows and ephemeral drainages. In addition, the proposed open space would
connect to existing open space areas adjacent to the project site providing a
contiguous open space corridor. Therefore, impacts related to project con-
sistency with applicable Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan goals and policies
associated with the protection of biological resources and loss of biodiversity
and would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, region-
al, or state habitat conservation plan.
There are no Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation
Plans, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plans
that have jurisdiction of the project site. Therefore, conflicts to these types of
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-51
plans from implementation of the proposed project would not occur and no
mitigation measures are required.
2. Cumulative Impacts
This section analyzes potential impacts to biological resources that could oc-
cur from a combination of the project with the Town buildout identified in
the Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan and reasonably foreseeable projects in
the surrounding area. The geographic scope of this analysis is taken as the
Town of Truckee sphere of influence (SOI), as defined in the Town of Truckee
2025 General Plan and reasonably foreseeable projects in the surrounding ar-
ea. Therefore, a cumulative impact would be considered potentially signifi-
cant if, taken together with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects
in the Town of Truckee SOI and the Boca Quarry project in Nevada County,
the project would contribute to the ongoing loss of natural, undisturbed open
space in the region resulting in a decline of biological resources and species
diversity.
The encroachment of development areas into natural, relatively undisturbed
open space is a continual and direct threat to wildlife species in the vicinity as
it removes habitat for plant species, increases fragmentation of open space in
the region effecting wildlife dispersal, and results in an increased human pres-
ence leading to the degradation of natural undisturbed habitats. Cumulative
disruptions to the wildlife movement and migration in the Truckee region
include Interstate 80, other roadways, reservoirs and dams, fencing, and fu-
ture and existing development, including the Glenshire residential area.
Buildout of the Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan, which includes all lands
within the SOI, could impact special-status plant and animal species, sensitive
natural communities, jurisdictional waters, and wildlife movement. Accord-
ingly, the project when considered with the Town of Truckee 2025 General
Plan buildout and the Boca Quarry project in Nevada County could result in
a significant cumulative impact to biological resources.
The Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan includes goals, policies, and actions to
reduce potential impacts to these biological resources to less-than-significant
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-52
levels. The analysis of the project’s impacts to biological resources concluded
that implementation of the Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-2, and BIO-3 in
addition to the proposed project’s design features (described above) would
ensure the project-related impacts to the natural habitats that have an excep-
tionally high value for wildlife species, providing water, thermal cover, wild-
life corridors, and diverse nesting and feeding opportunities would be less than
significant.
Impacts to biological resources from the Boca Quarry project to the north of
the project site would be limited to removal of native vegetation during min-
ing activities that is used by local and migrating (e.g. Loyalton-Truckee mule
deer herd) wildlife. These impacts would be adequately addressed by imple-
menting a concurrent revegetation strategy that would ensure that revegeta-
tion of mined areas would occur at the same time as the start of mining in
new areas, thereby reducing the length of time that previously mined lands
would be unvegetated and unusable by wildlife.24
However, while buildout of the Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan would
create significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts on biological resources
in the planning area,25 the project’s contribution to this significant impact is
not considered cumulatively considerable because the project includes mitiga-
tion measures and design features (described above) that would ensure the
project-related impacts to the natural habitats that have an exceptionally high
value for wildlife species would be less than significant. Therefore, cumulative
impacts identified with project implementation would be less than significant
and additional mitigation measures are required.
24 Nevada County Community Development Agency, 2010. Boca Quarry Ini-
tial Study.
25 Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan EIR, Chapter 4.3, Biological Resources,
Section D, Cumulative Impact Discussion, p. 4.3-22.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-53
3. Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section provides a summary discussion of the project impacts to biologi-
cal resources, and appropriate mitigation measures to reduce impacts to levels
that are less than significant.
Impact BIO-1: Removal of Jeffrey pine and sagebrush habitat could poten-
tially impact Sierra Nevada red foxes if suitable den sites occur on the project
site.
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Prior to the start of construction for each
phase of development, a qualified biologist selected by the Town of
Truckee shall survey the project site to determine if any burrows or oth-
er den sites suitable for use by Sierra Nevada red fox are present. The se-
lected surveyor shall coordinate with CDFG to determine an acceptable
survey methodology. If no evidence of this species is found during field
surveys, no further measures are required.
If an active Sierra Nevada red fox den is identified on the project site,
CDFG shall be contacted to determine how to proceed. It may be possi-
ble to proceed with construction with implementation of appropriate
avoidance and minimization measures (e.g. no-disturbance buffers, sea-
sonal work windows) to prevent incidental take of Sierra Nevada red fox.
If incidental take cannot be prevented, it may be necessary to obtain an
incidental take permit from CDFG, pursuant to Section 2081 of CESA,
before construction may proceed.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
Impact BIO-2: Removal of Jeffrey pine and sagebrush habitat could poten-
tially disturb nesting birds, including yellow warblers, if this species in nest-
ing on the project site.
Mitigation Measure BIO-2: The following shall be implemented to miti-
gate potential impacts to nesting yellow warblers. These measures shall
apply to activities associated with construction of infrastructure (e.g.,
roads, utilities) and also to future home construction.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-54
¤ All trees, shrubs, and other vegetation that is to be removed within
the proposed work area shall be removed during the non-nesting sea-
son, between September 16 and February 28.
¤ If vegetation removal is not possible during the non-nesting season, a
qualified biologist selected by the Town of Truckee shall survey the
proposed work area and lands within a 500-foot radius (this area may
be decreased due to property access constraints) for nesting birds. The
nesting survey shall be conducted within 14 days prior to the start of
construction.
¤ If no active nests are discovered, work can proceed.
¤ If an active nest is discovered, the project proponent shall implement
one of the following two approaches:
Ÿ A no-disturbance buffer shall be established around the active nest(s)
using orange construction fencing (or equivalent). For raptors, the
buffer shall be established at a 500-foot radius; for non-raptors, the
buffer shall be established at a 100-foot radius. The fencing marking
the buffer shall be maintained in place until construction is com-
plete, the young have fledged, or the nest fails (the latter two shall
be determined by a qualified biologist); or
Ÿ A qualified biologist selected by the Town of Truckee shall evaluate
the potential for the proposed project to disturb nesting activities.
The evaluation criteria shall include, but are not limited to, the lo-
cation/orientation of the nest in the nest tree, the distance of the
nest from the proposed work area, and line of sight between the
nest and the proposed work area. CDFG shall be contacted to re-
view the evaluation and determine if the project can proceed with-
out adversely affecting nesting activities. If work is allowed to pro-
ceed, at a minimum, a qualified biologist shall be on-site during the
start of construction activities during the nesting season to monitor
nesting activity. The monitor shall have the authority to stop work
if it is determined the project is adversely affecting nesting activities.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-55
¤ The above measures shall be repeated, as necessary, in accordance with
the phasing of project construction.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
Impact BIO-3: Installation of the wood piles for the pedestrian trail foot-
bridges would impact wetlands and non-wetland waters present on the project
site.
Mitigation Measure BIO-3: The following shall be implemented to miti-
gate potential impacts to wetlands and non-wetland waters.
¤ Wetlands and non-wetland waters permanently impacted during con-
struction shall be mitigated by one of the following methods or by us-
ing a combination of the methods.
Ÿ Preservation, creation, and/or restoration of the impacted resources
at a minimum ratio of 2:1 (creation could potentially be implement-
ed at a 1:1 ratio if completed and functional prior to the start of
construction).
Ÿ Purchase of credits at an approved mitigation bank at a minimum
1:1 mitigation ratio.
Ÿ Payment of in-lieu fees per the current ACOE, Sacramento District
in-lieu fee schedule.
¤ All mitigation lands shall be protected in perpetuity through re-
cordation of a conservation easement or equivalent method.
¤ Prior to issuance of a grading permit or other authorization to proceed
with project construction, the project proponent shall obtain any reg-
ulatory permits that are required from the Army Corps of Engineers,
Regional Water Quality Control Board, and/or California Depart-
ment of Fish and Game.
¤ The project proponent shall obtain a Minor Use Permit pursuant to
Section 18.46.040.C of the Town of Truckee Development Code.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4-56
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
Impact BIO-4: Removal of Jeffrey pine habitat and snags could potentially
disturb roosting bats if active roosts are present on the project site.
Mitigation Measure BIO-4: The following shall be implemented to miti-
gate potential impacts to roosting bats. All snags and potential roost
trees (i.e. 20 inches in diameter at breast height (dbh) or greater) within
the project impact area shall be removed between September 1 and Octo-
ber 14, or between February 16 and April 14. Removal of trees during
these periods would avoid impacts to any bats occurring on the project
site during the normal breeding season (April 15 to August 30) and win-
ter torpor (October 15 to February 15). Removal shall occur as follows:
¤ At least two days prior to removal of snags and potential roost trees,
construction activities shall commence in the vicinity of the potential
roost(s) to expose bats potentially using the roosts to the sounds and
vibrations of equipment with the intention of causing the bats to leave
the roost, thus avoiding potential injury when the roost is removed.
¤ Equipment and vehicles shall not be operated under potential roost
trees that would not be removed to prevent exhaust fumes from filling
roost cavities.
Alternatively, all potential roost trees within the project impact area
shall be surveyed by a qualified biologist to determine if any trees can
be excluded as suitable bat roosts due to the lack of suitable structural
characteristics. If any trees can be excluded as bat roosts, removal of
these trees would not be subject to the seasonal restrictions described
above.
The above measures shall be repeated, as necessary, in accordance with
the phasing of project construction.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.5-1
This section describes the existing conditions for cultural resources in the
project site and evaluates the potential project-related impacts to such
resources. This section also includes a discussion of potential cumulative
impacts to cultural resources. The section was developed through
background research and field surveys of the project site.
Cultural resources are sites, buildings, structures, objects, and districts that
may have traditional or cultural value for their historical significance.
Cultural resources include a broad range of resources, examples of which
include archaeological sites, historic roadways and railroad tracks, and
buildings of architectural significance. Generally, for a cultural resource to be
considered a historical resource (i.e. meets the criteria at Public Resource
Code Section 21084.1), it must be 50 years or older.1
A. Regulatory Framework
1. Federal Laws and Regulations
There are no Federal laws or regulations related to cultural resources that are
relevant to the project site.
2. State Laws and Regulations
a. California Environmental Quality Act
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that effects to
cultural resources be considered in the planning process for discretionary
projects. Under the provisions of CEQA, a “project with an effect that may
cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is
a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.”2 Public
1 California Office of Historic Preservation, 1999:3, California Register and
National Register: A Comparison. Technical Assistance Series No. 6. California Office
of Historic Preservation, Sacramento.
2 California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15064.5(b):
Determining the Significance of Impacts on Historical and Unique Archaeological
Resources
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.5-2
Resources Code Section 21084.1 defines a “historical resource” as a resource
which meets one or more of the following criteria:
¤ Listed in, or eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical
Resources;
¤ Listed in a local register of historical resources (as defined at PRC Section
5020.1(k));
¤ Identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the
requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code; and
¤ Determined to be a historical resource by a project's lead agency
(California Code of Regulations Title 14(3) Section 15064.5(a))
A historical resource consists of:
“Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript
which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant
in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural,
educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of
California…Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency
to be ‘historically significant’ if the resource meets the criteria for listing
on the California Register of Historical Resources.”3
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines California Code of Regulations (CCR)
Section 15064.5(b), a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource is a significant effect on the environment.
Under CEQA, paleontological resources are a subset of cultural resources and
include fossil plants and animals, and evidence of past life such as trace fossils
and tracks.
3 California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15064.5(a):
Determining the Significance of Impacts on Historical and Unique Archaeological
Resources.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.5-3
The CEQA requires a Lead Agency to determine if an archaeological cultural
resource meets the definition of a historical resource, a unique archaeological
resource, or neither.4 Prior to considering potential impacts, the Lead
Agency must determine whether an archaeological cultural resource meets the
definition of a historical resource in CCR Section 15064.5(c)(1). If the
archaeological cultural resource meets the definition of a historical resource,
then it is treated like any other type of historical resource in accordance with
CCR Section 15126.4. If the archaeological cultural resource does not meet
the definition of a historical resource, then the lead agency determines if it
meets the definition of a unique archaeological resource as defined at CEQA
Section 21083.2(g).
In practice, however, most archaeological sites that meet the definition of a
unique archaeological resource will first meet the definition of a historical
resource.5 Should the archaeological cultural resource meet the definition of a
unique archaeological resource, then it must be treated in accordance with
CEQA Section 21083.2. If the archaeological cultural resource does not meet
the definition of a historical resource or an archaeological resource, then
effects to the resource are not considered significant effects on the
environment.6
b. California Public Resources Code
California Public Resources Code Section 5097.5 prohibits excavation or
removal of any “vertebrate paleontological site […] or any other
archaeological, paleontological or historical feature, situated on public lands,
4 California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15064.5(c):
Determining the Significance of Impacts on Historical and Unique Archaeological
Resources.
5 Bass, Ronald E., Albert I. Herson, and Kenneth M. Bogdan, 1999. CEQA
Deskbook: A Step-by-Step Guide on how to Comply with the California Environmental
Quality Act, Point Arena, California: Solano Press Books, page 105.
6 California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15064.5(c)(4):
Determining the Significance of Impacts to Archeological and Historical Resources.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.5-4
except with express permission of the public agency having jurisdiction over
such lands.”
Public lands are defined to include lands owned by or under the jurisdiction
of the state or any city, county, district, authority, or public corporation, or
any agency thereof. Section 5097.5 states that any unauthorized disturbance
or removal of archaeological, historical, or paleontological materials or sites
located on public lands is a misdemeanor.
c. California Health and Safety Code
California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that in the event of
the discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other
than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance
of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains
until the coroner of the county in which the remains are discovered has
determined whether or not the remains are subject to the coroner’s authority.
If the human remains are of Native American origin, the coroner must notify
the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours of this
identification. The NAHC must identify a Native American Most Likely
Descendant (MLD) to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the
proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods.
3. Local Regulations and Policies
a. Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan
The Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan contains goals and policies that are
relevant to the cultural resources. These goals and policies occur in the
Community Character (CC) Element and are listed below in Table 4.5-1.
B. Existing Conditions
This section describes the cultural setting for the project site and its vicinity.
The existing conditions were identified from a literature review, a records
search at the North Central Information Center, and field surveys.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.5-5
TABLE 4.5-1 TRUCKEE GENERAL PLAN POLICIES PERTAINING TO
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Policy or
Goal No. Goals and Policies
Goal CC-18 Preserve and enhance the town’s historic and cultural resources.
CC-P18.1 Require evaluation of impacts to historic resources for projects
which involve substantial site disturbance, or demolition or
alteration of known historic buildings.
CC-P18.3 Encourage and cooperate with the private sector in the
implementation of innovative strategies to preserve all of Truckee’s
identified historic buildings and sites, including Native American
and ethnic group sites. Preservation strategies could include by gift,
establishment of private conservancies, and easements.
CC-P18.5 Work with California State Parks, the Tahoe-Donner Recreation
and Parks District, the Truckee Donner Historical Society, the
Truckee Donner Land Trust and other entities to maintain and
increase opportunities for public recreation and access to historic
sites, including Native American and ethnic group sites. In the case
of Native American sites, any increased access should be developed
in close consultation with local tribes, and due respect accorded to
the potential cultural or spiritual significance of these places.
CC-P18.6 Support all efforts to document and preserve Truckee’s rich historic
legacy, including its Native American and ethnic history, and to
educate residents and visitors about the town’s historic buildings
and sites.
Goal CC-19 Identify and protect archaeological and paleontological resources that
enrich our understanding of Truckee’s early history and the early
cultures and environment of the region.
CC-P19.1 As part of the development review process, require proper
archaeological or paleontological surveying, testing, research,
documentation, monitoring, and safe retrieval of archaeological and
cultural resources.
CC-P19.2 Require an archaeological survey by a qualified professional
whenever there is evidence of an archaeological or paleontological
site within a proposed project area, is determined to be a high
likelihood for occurrence of such sites, or where a project involves
substantial site disturbance.
CC-P19.3 Consult with representatives of the Native American community
whenever necessary to ensure the respectful treatment of Native
American sacred places.
Source: Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.5-6
1. Culture History: Prehistory/Ethnography7
The archaeology of the region was first outlined by Heizer and Elsasser8 in
their study of sites located in the Truckee Basin Martis Valley area. They
identified two distinct prehistoric lifeways that are believed to have once
characterized the area’s early occupants. Subsequent studies have further
refined the cultural history of the region.9 Some of the oldest archaeological
remains reported for the Tahoe Region have been found in the Truckee River
Canyon near Squaw Valley. These Pre-Archaic remains suggest occupation
approximately 9,000 years ago (Tahoe Reach Phase). Other Pre-Archaic to
Early Archaic occupation dating from about 7,000 years ago was documented
at Spooner Lake (Spooner Phase) near Spooner Summit overlooking Lake
Tahoe. The most intensive period of occupation in the region may have
occurred at varying intervals between 4,000 and 500 years ago (Martis Phases
during the Early and Middle Archaic, and Early Kings Beach Phase during the
Late Archaic). The proto-historic ancestors of the Washoe (Late Kings Beach
Phase), also of Late Archaic times, may date roughly from 500 years ago to
historic contact.
The project area falls within the center of Washoe territory, with primary use
by the northern Washoe. The Washoe themselves regard all "prehistoric"
remains and sites within the Truckee Basin as associated with their own
7 The Culture History and History sections have been adapted from the 2007
Canyon Springs Subdivision Draft EIR, which was based on Melinda Peak’s, principal
investigator and president of Peak and Associates, a cultural resources consulting firm,
peer review of the study of the project site entitled, Tahoe Boca Estates Project, Heritage
Resource Inventory Update prepared by Susan Lindström, Ph.D, in June 2003. The 2003
study was designed to update and check the prior 1989 study by Blossom Hamusek
entitled, Archaeological Reconnaissance of Tahoe Boca Estates. See Appendix of this
Draft EIR.
8 Heizer, Robert F. and Albert B. Elsasser, 1953. Some Archaeological Sites and
Cultures of the Central Sierra Nevada. University of California Archaeological Survey
Reports 12. Berkeley, California.
9 Hull, Kathleen L., 2007. The Sierra Nevada: Archaeology in the Range of
Light. In California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by Terry
L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, pp. 177-190. Altamira Press, Lanham, Maryland.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.5-7
history. In support of this contention, they point to the traditions of their
neighbors (the Northern Paiute, California Indians, and non-Indian
Americans), which include stories about migrations and movement, whereas
those of the Washoe do not.
The ethnographic record suggests that during the mild season small groups
traveled through high mountain valleys collecting edible and medicinal roots,
seeds, and marsh plants. In the higher elevations, men hunted large game
(mountain sheep, deer) and trapped smaller mammals. The Truckee River
and tributaries such as Martis Creek were important fisheries year-round.
Suitable toolstone (such as basalt) was quarried at various locales in Martis
Valley. The Washoe have a tradition of making long treks across the Sierran
passes for the purpose of hunting, trading, and gathering acorns. These
aboriginal trek routes, which followed game trails, are often the precursors of
our historic and modern road systems. Archaeological evidence of these
ancient subsistence activities are found along the mountain flanks as
temporary small hunting camps containing flakes of stone and broken tools.
In the high valleys more permanent base camps are represented by stone
flakes, tools, grinding implements, and house depressions.
While there was a tendency for groups to move from lower to higher
elevations during the mild seasons, and to return to lower elevations the
remainder of the year, a fixed seasonal round was not rigidly adhered to by all
Washoe; some Washoe may have wintered in the Truckee Basin during
milder seasons.10 While some Washoe trekked to distant places for desired
resources, most groups circulated in the vicinity of their traditional habitation
sites and appear to have been less compelled to cover large expanses of land in
their subsistence pursuit than some other groups in the Great Basin. This was
10 D’Azevedo, Warren L., 1986. Washoe. In Great Basin, edited by Warren L.
D’Azevedo, pp. 466-498. Handbook of North American Indians Vol. 11, William C.
Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.5-8
due to the large variety of predictable resources close at hand.11 Their
relatively rich environment afforded the Washoe a degree of isolation and
independence from neighboring peoples and may account for their long
tenure in their known area of historic occupation.12 The Washoe are part of
an ancient Hokan-speaking residual population, which has been subsequently
surrounded by Numic-speaking intruders, such as the Northern Paiute. Even
into the 20th century, the Washoe were not completely displaced from their
traditional lands. The contemporary Washoe have developed a
Comprehensive Land Use Plan that includes goals of reestablishing a presence
within the Tahoe Sierra and re-vitalizing Washoe heritage and cultural
knowledge, including the harvest and care of traditional plant resources and
the protection of traditional properties within the cultural landscape.
2. History of Truckee Area
Logging first occurred in the Truckee-Donner to supply the needs of mining
operations after the discovery of the Comstock Lode in l859. When mining
production began to decrease in l867, the lumbering business also began to
suffer. A new market for lumber was found in the Central Pacific Railroad
(CPRR), which had been laying track toward Donner Pass since l864, greatly
enhancing the fortunes of sawmills along its path. As the rails reached the
summit in l866-67, a number of mills established operations in the Truckee
Basin to supply cordwood for fuel, lumber for construction, and ties for the
roadbed. Coburn's Station (Truckee) soon became one of the major
lumbering centers. After the completion of the railroad in l868-69, lumber
companies diversified and grew as new markets were opened to them.
Truckee saw its most prosperous days during the brisk lumbering period
from l868 through l880. In the 8 miles between Truckee and Boca alone, at
least a dozen sawmills were active in l876. In 1881, the sharp decline of the
11 D’Azevedo, Warren L., 1986. Washoe. In Great Basin, edited by Warren L.
D’Azevedo, pp. 466-498. Handbook of North American Indians Vol. 11, William C.
Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
12 D’Azevedo, Warren L., 1986. Washoe. In Great Basin, edited by Warren L.
D’Azevedo, pp. 466-498. Handbook of North American Indians Vol. 11, William C.
Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.5-9
silver output due to the final slump in Comstock ore production reduced
sawmilling in the Truckee Basin. After l88l, lumbering in the Truckee River
area proceeded at a slower and steadier rate, supplying the CPRR and other
railroads, other mines, and the building and fuel needs of growing
populations as far as the Wasatch Range in Utah. The period of lumbering in
the Truckee Basin from l88l through l909 chronicled the final operations of
seven of the nine big lumber operators, including the Pacific Lumber and
Wood Company (PL&WC), which operated in the vicinity of the proposed
project along Juniper Creek. During the final period of lumbering in the
Truckee Basin, between l9l0 through l936, the last of the virgin pine forests
were cleared and almost all the operators were taking some second growth
timber.
According to maps of Nevada County dating from 1880 and 1913, the
PL&WC owned land adjoining the project area in the east half of Section 3.
No ownership is shown on the 1880 map for the west half of the section,
which encompasses the project site.
The PL&WC centered their operations within the present-day Glenshire-
Devonshire subdivision on Juniper Flat and up Juniper Creek. A narrow
gauge railroad led to their mill site at Clinton (Camp l8 on the railroad and
now known as Hirschdale). The mill of the PL&WC was established in l870
by G. N. Folsom and H. W. Bragg, although control subsequently passed to
Fred Burchkhalter. In addition to the sawmill proper, it supported a full
outfit of planers, lathes, and molding machines, and produced all kinds of
dressed and planed lumber. As timber resources were depleted, the narrow
gauge line was abandoned in l90l, and, shortly thereafter, the machinery at
the Clinton mill was sold.
It is possible that another small independent logging operation, centered near
Union Mills (located about ½-mile north of the project site), may also have
harvested timber in the project site. One smaller operator during the period
l88l through l909, which may have logged closest to the project area, was the
partnership of Stewart McKay and J. A. Stewart. According to a 1913 map of
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.5-10
Nevada County, Steward McKay owned property in Section 4, which adjoins
the project site on the west. McKay and Stewart put up a new mill on their
timberland near Union Mills in the spring of l89l. Six years later, Mr. McKay
bought his partner's interest and moved the mill to Sardine Valley and began
shipping lumber to Hobart Mills.
A 1913 map of Nevada County indicates that the entire project site was once
owned by the Union Ice Company. However, given the lack of sufficient
water it is doubtful that ice was ever manufactured in the project site. From
1868 through the 1920s, ice harvesting was an important business in the
Truckee area. Mergers of smaller ice companies formed powerful ice
corporations that competed for the ice trade.
California's growing major cities and the development of a relatively stable
population pattern led to the market demand for ice. The Sierra Nevada ice
industry developed greatly after the completion of the transcontinental
railroad, and the main center of the industry was located on tributaries of the
Truckee River and around Donner Pass. Sierra ice was noted for its crystal
purity and it was proudly served in large hotels throughout the nation. Ice
cooled the 140-degree temperatures deep in the shafts of the Comstock mines,
and it proved essential for refrigerating California produce during rail
shipment to the eastern markets.
3. Paleontological Setting
The bedrock of the project area is Miocene and Pliocene (25 to 2 million years
old) volcanic rock upon which younger Pleistocene (2 million to 10 thousand
years old) glacial and alluvial deposits are deposited. Miocene to Pliocene
volcanic rock forms the bedrock in and near the project site. These rocks
comprise the andesite and basalt flows that are common in the region.
Igneous rocks do not generally contain fossils and, therefore, are not
paleontologically sensitive.
Portions of the project area contain glacial and alluvial Pleistocene
sedimentary deposits. These deposits are generally loose gravel, sand, silt, and
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.5-11
clay. Pleistocene alluvial deposits commonly contain vertebrate fossil
resources, including mammoth, bison, horse, camel, ground sloth, saber-
toothed cats, dire wolves, bear, rodents, birds, and reptiles.
4. Records Searches
LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) conducted a records search of the project site on
May 24, 2011, at the North Central Information Center (NCIC) of the
California Historical Resources Information System, Sacramento State
University. The NCIC, an affiliate of the State of California Office of
Historic Preservation, is the official State repository of cultural resource
records and reports for Nevada County.
Eight cultural resources are recorded in the project site:
¤ P-29-2838/CA-NEV-1760. A prehistoric archaeological site consisting of a
lithic scatter comprising basalt and obsidian flaking debris and bifacial
tools.
¤ P-29-2839/CA-NEV-1761. A prehistoric archaeological site consisting of
lithic scatter comprising basalt and obsidian flaking debris and a bifacial
tool.
¤ P-29-2840. An isolated prehistoric rose quartz projectile point.
¤ P-29-2841. An isolated prehistoric basalt projectile point.
¤ P-29-2842. An isolated prehistoric basalt waste flake.
¤ P-29-2843. An isolated prehistoric basalt waste flake.
¤ P-29-2844. An isolated historic olive green wine bottle.
¤ P-29-2845. An isolated prehistoric basalt biface.
On June 1, 2011, staff of the University of California Museum of
Paleontology (UCMP) conducted a fossil locality search of the project site
and a two-mile radius to identify recorded paleontological resources (fossils)
within and near the project site. No fossils have been recorded in the project
site or immediate vicinity.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.5-12
5. Field Surveys
Four previous cultural resources surveys have been conducted of the project
site. In 1998, archaeologists with California State University, Chico,
conducted a survey for the proposed Tahoe Boca Estates subdivision project.13
Eight prehistoric and historic-period resources were identified as a result of
this survey (see bulleted resource descriptions above). In 1995, a Registered
Professional Forester (RPF) conducted a cultural resources survey of 4,000
acres for a Timber Harvest Plan (THP) that included the proposed access road
connecting Martis Peak Road with the project site.14 No cultural resources
were identified within the access road portion of the proposed project.
Another RPF THP cultural resources survey was conducted of approximately
15 acres in the southern portion of the project site in 1998.15 No cultural
resources were identified as a result of the 1998 survey. In 2003, Susan
Lindström conducted a cultural resources study for the proposed Tahoe Boca
Estates subdivision project to update and confirm the findings of the 1998
survey completed for that project.16 Lindström conducted a field spot check
of P-29-2838/CA-NEV-1760 and P-29-2839/CA-NEV-1761 and identified two
previously unidentified isolated basalt waste flakes.
LSA archaeologist, E. Timothy Jones, visited the project site on May 25,
2011, to identify the current conditions of prehistoric archaeological sites P-
29-2838/CA-NEV-1760 and P-29-2839/CA-NEV-1761 and update the findings
13 Hamusek, Blossom, 1989. Archaeological Reconnaissance of Tahoe Boca
Estates, Nevada County, California. On file, NCIC Information Center, Sacramento
State University.
14 Johnson, James P., 1995. Archaeological and Historical Resources Survey and
Impact Assessment: A Supplemental Report for a Timber Harvesting Plan. On file, NCIC
Information Center, Sacramento State University.
15 Houdyschell, William H., 1998. Archaeological and Historical Resources
Survey and Impact Assessment: A Supplemental Report for a Timber Harvesting Plan. On
file, NCIC Information Center, Sacramento State University.
16 Lindström, Susan, 2003. Tahoe Boca Estates Project, Heritage Resource
Inventory Update, Truckee, California, Nevada County. On file, NCIC Information
Center, Sacramento State University.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.5-13
of Hamusek and Lindström. A low- to moderate-density scatter of basalt
waste flakes were identified at both sites, a single obsidian flake was identified
at P-29-2838/CA-NEV-1760, and a possible basalt edge-modified flake tool
was identified at P-29-2839/CA-NEV-1761. Both of these sites are in good
condition and are as described by Hamusek and Lindström.
In total, all of the aforementioned cultural resources surveys covered the
entire area considered by the proposed project.
C. Standards of Significance
Cultural resource impacts associated with the project would be considered
significant if they would:
¤ Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
resource as defined in CCR Section 15064.5.
¤ Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to CCR Section 15064.5.
¤ Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature.
¤ Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries.
D. Impact Discussion
The proposed project has the potential to impact cultural resources, as
described below.
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
resource as defined in CCR Section 15064.5.
No built environment historical resources were identified in the project site.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.5-14
Under CEQA, both prehistoric and historic-period archaeological sites may
qualify as historical resources.17 Eight isolated archaeological cultural
resources have been identified in the project site, as reported by Hamusek
(1989) and Lindström (2003). These isolates do not meet any of the criteria
for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources and no
protection or mitigation of project impacts to these resources is required.
Prehistoric archaeological sites P-29-2838/CA-NEV-1760 and P-29-2839/CA-
NEV-1761 are considered historical resources for purposes of this project due
to their ability to yield information important in prehistory.18 Although
these sites are outside proposed building envelope areas, they could be
impacted by the proposed project due to increased visitation and use of the
area, including recreational activities such as hiking and biking as well as
construction and/or maintenance of soft surface recreational trails.
Under CEQA, a significant impact on the environment may occur when a
substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource occurs.
Such a change occurs when the significance of a resource is materially
impaired by the demolition or material alteration of its significant qualities.19
The proposed project has the potential to materially impair the ability of
P-29-2838/CA-NEV-1760 and P-29-2839/CA-NEV-1761 to convey their
important information due to their disturbance (e.g. from illicit artifact
collection and physical damage from recreational uses), which could result in
a significant impact.
Although the project site has been surveyed for archaeological sites, the
potential for additional, previously unrecorded, sites exists. Archaeological
sites are frequently buried under alluvium with little or no surface
17 California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15064.5(c),
Determining the Significance of Impacts on Historical and Unique Archaeological
Resources.
18 California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15064.5(a)(3)(D).
19 California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15064.5(b):
Determining the Significance of Impacts on Historical and Unique Archaeological
Resources.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.5-15
manifestation, and could have been obscured during archaeological surface
surveys. There is a potential, therefore, that project ground-disturbing
activities could disturb previously unidentified archaeological sites that
qualify as historical resources under CEQA. This could result in a significant
impact.
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to Section 15064.5.
Background research and archaeological field surveys identified archaeological
isolates and two prehistoric archaeological sites in the project area, as
described above. None of these isolates or sites qualify as “unique
archaeological resources” as defined under CEQA.20 Therefore, the project’s
impacts on archaeological resources would be less than significant.
However, for purposes of CEQA,21 two of the prehistoric archaeological sites
— P-29-2838/CA-NEV-1760 and P-29-2839/CA-NEV-1761 — are considered
historical resources as described in Standards of Significance and Impact
sections above.
c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature.
Based on a fossil locality search conducted by the UCMP, no fossil localities
have been recorded within 2 miles of the project site. Two fossils, however,
have been identified near Boca Reservoir north of the project in Pleistocene
sediments similar to those that underlie the project site. The Pleistocene
sediments that underlie the project site have the potential to contain
paleontological resources. Project ground-disturbing activities, such as site
grading and trenching for utilities, have the potential to disturb significant
paleontological resources. This could result in a potentially significant impact.
20 California Public Resources Code, Section 21083.2: Archaeological
Resources.
21 California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15064.5(c):
Determining the Significance of Impacts on Historical and Unique Archaeological
Resources.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.5-16
d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries.
Human remains have not been identified in the project site. Native American
skeletal remains, however, are commonly associated with prehistoric
archaeological sites, and the possibility of buried remains in the project site
cannot be discounted. Project ground-disturbing activities, such as site
grading and trenching for utilities, have the potential to disturb human
remains interred outside of formal cemeteries. Disturbance of unknown
human remains would be a potentially significant impact. However, any
human remains encountered during project ground-disturbing activities are
required to be treated in accordance with California Health and Safety Code
Section 7050.5. Procedures of conduct following the discovery of human
remains have been mandated by Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5,
Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 and the California Code of
Regulations Section 15064.5(e) (CEQA). According to the provisions in
CEQA, if human remains are encountered at the site, all work in the
immediate vicinity of the discovery shall cease and necessary steps to ensure
the integrity of the immediate area shall be taken. The Nevada County
Coroner shall be notified immediately. The Coroner shall then determine
whether the remains are Native American. If the Coroner determines the
remains are Native American, the Coroner shall notify the NAHC within 24
hours, who will, in turn, notify the person the NAHC identifies as the most
likely descendent (MLD) of any human remains. Further actions shall be
determined, in part, by the desires of the MLD. The MLD has 48 hours to
make recommendations regarding the disposition of the remains following
notification from the NAHC of the discovery. If the MLD does not make
recommendations within 48 hours, the owner shall, with appropriate dignity,
reinter the remains in an area of the property secure from further
disturbance. Alternatively, if the owner does not accept the MLD’s
recommendations, the owner or the descendent may request mediation by the
NAHC. Through implementation of mandatory regulatory procedures
described above impacts to human remains would be less than significant and
no mitigation measures are required.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.5-17
E. Cumulative Impacts
This section analyzes potential impacts on cultural resources that could occur
from a combination of the project with the Town buildout identified in the
Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan and reasonably foreseeable projects in the
surrounding area. The geographic scope of this analysis is taken as the Town
of Truckee sphere of influence (SOI), as defined in the Town of Truckee 2025
General Plan and reasonably foreseeable projects in the surrounding area.
Therefore, a cumulative impact would be considered significant if, taken
together with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects in the Town
of Truckee SOI and other reasonably foreseeable projects in the surrounding
area, it would increase the density of the area and may further threaten
significant cultural resources in the vicinity.
Professional archeologists generally recognize that population growth
increases the probability for vandalism and other purposeful as well as
inadvertent acts that destroy significant archeological resources. Impacts to
cultural resources tend to be site-specific and are assessed on a site-by-site
basis. The significance of the impacts would depend largely on what, if any,
cultural resources occur on or near the sites of the projects that would occur
through the Town buildout identified in the Town of Truckee 2025 General
Plan and reasonably foreseeable projects in the surrounding area, and the
importance or historical significance of those resources. The extent of the
cultural resources (if any) that occur at the other sites of the other project
sites is unknown, and thus, it is not known whether any of the related
projects would result in significant impacts to cultural resources. However,
similar to the proposed project, such determinations would be made on a
case-by-case basis and, if necessary, the applicants of the related projects
would be required to implement the appropriate mitigation measures. Thus,
given that the proposed project’s cultural resources impacts can be mitigated
to a less than significant level, the proposed project’s impacts to cultural
resources would not be cumulatively considerable. Therefore, cumulative
impacts to cultural resources would be less than significant and no mitigation
measures are required.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.5-18
F. Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The proposed project could significantly impact archaeological sites, and
paleontological resources. Mitigation measures for these impacts are provided
below.
Impact CULT-1: Increased use of the project site and project ground-
disturbing activities could have significant impacts on prehistoric
archaeological deposits that qualify as “historical resources” under CEQA.
Mitigation Measure CULT-1a: All surface remains from prehistoric sites
P-29-2838/CA-NEV-1760 and P-29-2839/CA-NEV-1761 shall be
collected, analyzed, and reported upon, leaving potential subsurface
archaeological deposits intact and undisturbed.
Additional study at both sites shall be conducted, including the following
activities:
¤ Field artifact technical analysis prior to project ground-disturbing
activities;
¤ 100 percent collection of all surface artifacts;
¤ Submittal of a small representative sample of collected artifacts for
basalt sourcing analysis; and
¤ Completion of a catalog of items collected and preparation of a brief
report presenting findings of the lithics analysis.
The final report and catalog shall be submitted to the NCIC; artifacts
collected from these sites shall be curated in an appropriate facility to
allow for future research and public interpretation of the collection.
Prehistoric sites P-29-2838/CA-NEV-1760 and P-29-2839/CA-NEV-1761
shall remain within protected open-space areas to avoid impacts from
ground-disturbing activities. During project construction, a protective
buffer shall be maintained by installing temporary fencing around each
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.5-19
site; this activity shall be directed by a professional archaeologist.
Fencing shall be removed after project ground-disturbing activities cease.
The Town shall be responsible for ensuring that the stipulations of
Mitigation Measure CULT-1a are completed. The applicant shall be
responsible for funding implementation of this mitigation measure.
Mitigation Measure CULT-1b: In the event that archaeological materials
are discovered during project activities, the applicant shall inform its
contractor(s) of the archaeological sensitivity of the project site by
including the following italicized measures in contract documents. The
Town shall verify that the following language is included in the
appropriate contract documents:
“If prehistoric or historical archaeological deposits are discovered during
project activities, all work within 25 feet of the discovery shall be redirected
and a qualified archaeologist contacted to assess the situation, consult with
agencies as appropriate, and make recommendations regarding the
treatment of the discovery. Project personnel shall not collect or move any
archaeological materials or human remains and associated materials.
Archaeological resources can include flaked-stone tools (e.g. projectile points,
knives, choppers) or obsidian, chert, basalt, or quartzite toolmaking debris;
bone tools; culturally darkened soil (i.e. midden soil often containing heat-
affected rock, ash and charcoal, shellfish remains, faunal bones, and cultural
materials); and stone-milling equipment (e.g. mortars, pestles, handstones).
Prehistoric archaeological sites often contain human remains. Historical
materials can include wood, stone, concrete, or adobe footings, walls, and
other structural remains; debris-filled wells or privies; and deposits of wood,
glass, ceramics, metal, and other refuse.”
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
Impact CULT-2: Pleistocene sediments underlie the project site and have the
potential to contain paleontological resources. Should project ground-
disturbing activities encounter such resources, a substantial adverse change in
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.5-20
their significance (e.g. their disturbance or destruction) would constitute a
significant impact under CEQA.
Mitigation Measure CULT-2: In the event that fossils are discovered
during project activities, the applicant shall inform its contractor(s) of the
paleontological sensitivity of the project site by including the following
italicized language in contract documents. The Town shall verify that
the following language is included in the appropriate contract documents:
“The subsurface at the construction site may be sensitive for paleontological
resources. If paleontological resources are encountered during project
subsurface construction, all ground-disturbing activities within 25 feet shall
be redirected and a qualified paleontologist contacted to assess the situation,
consult with agencies as appropriate, and make recommendations for the
treatment of the discovery. Project personnel shall not collect or move any
paleontological materials. Paleontological resources include fossil plants
and animals, and such trace fossil evidence of past life as tracks. Ancient
marine sediments may contain invertebrate fossils such as snails, clam and
oyster shells, sponges, and protozoa; and vertebrate fossils such as fish,
whale, and sea lion bones. Vertebrate land mammals may include bones of
mammoth, camel, saber tooth cat, horse, and bison. Paleontological
resources also include plant imprints, petrified wood, and animal tracks.”
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
4.6 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY
4.6-1
This section addresses the subject of geology, soils, and seismic hazards, and
mineral resources with respect to the buildout of the proposed project. In
addition, this section includes an assessment of potential impacts associated
with the development of the project with respect to the geology, soils, and
seismic hazards in the project area. The information and analysis in this sec-
tion is primarily based on the following documents, which are included in
Appendix J, Geotechnical and Hazards Data, of this Draft EIR:
¤ Geologic, Geohazards, and Environmental Hazards Evaluation Report Up-
date prepared by Geocon Consultants, Inc., June 2006.
¤ Preliminary Grading, Drainage, and Utilities Plan, prepared by SCO
Planning, Engineering and Surveying, Grading Plan, January 2011.
The abovementioned report, herein referenced as Geotechnical Report, is
based on a review of the following reports previously prepared for the project
site:
¤ Geologic, Geohazards, and Environmental Evaluation, prepared by Geocon
Consultants, Inc., June 2005.
¤ Geotechnical Engineering Report for Tahoe Boca, Truckee, California, pre-
pared by Holdredge & Kull, 2003.
The Geotechnical Report is also based on a review of available published and
unpublished geologic and seismic literature pertinent to the project area. In
addition, the Conservation and Open Space Element and the Safety Element
of the Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan, and the Safety Element of the Ne-
vada County General Plan and Grading Ordinance were also reviewed.
As illustrated on Figure COS-2, Important Mineral Resources, in the Town
of Truckee 2025 General Plan, the project site is not within an important
mineral resource area. The project would not result in the loss of availability
of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state or result in the loss of availability of a locally important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local General Plan, specific
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY
4.6-2
plan, or other land use plan. Accordingly, no further discussion of the pro-
ject’s potential impacts to mineral resources will be included in this section.
A. Regulatory Framework
This section summarizes key federal, State, and local regulations, policies, and
programs pertaining to geology, soils, and seismic hazards in the vicinity of
the project site.
1. Federal Regulations
There are no federal regulations pertaining to geology, soils, and seismic haz-
ards that apply to this project.
2. State Regulations
The State of California has established a variety of regulations and require-
ments related to seismic safety and structural integrity, including the Califor-
nia Building Code, the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, and the
Seismic Hazards Mapping Act.
a. California Building Code
The 2010 California Building Code (CBC) is included in Title 24 of the Cali-
fornia Code of Regulations and is a portion of the California Building Stand-
ards Code. Under State law, all building standards must be centralized in
Title 24 or they are not enforceable. Through the CBC, the State provides a
minimum standard for building design and construction. The CBC contains
specific requirements for seismic safety, excavation, foundations, retaining
walls, and site demolition. It also regulates grading activities, including drain-
age and erosion control. The development of the proposed project would be
required to adhere to all applicable federal, State, and local statues and regula-
tions related to construction and operation.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY
4.6-3
b. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Zones Act1 was passed in 1972 to mitigate the
hazard of surface faulting to structures for human occupancy. The main pur-
pose of this Act is to prevent the construction of buildings used for human
occupancy on top of active faults. The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Zones Act
only addresses the hazard of surface fault rupture and is not directed toward
other earthquake hazards.2
Under this Act, the State Geologist is required to establish regulatory zones
(known as Earthquake Fault Zones or Alquist-Priolo Zones)3 around the sur-
face traces of active faults, and to issue appropriate maps. The maps are dis-
tributed to all affected cities, counties, and State agencies for their use in plan-
ning and controlling new or renewed construction. Local agencies must regu-
late most development projects within the zones and there can generally be
no construction within 50 feet of an active fault zone.4
As of January 2010, the California Geologic Survey did not list the Town of
Truckee on its list of cities affected by Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zones.5
3. Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (California Public Resources Code Sec-
tions 2690-2699.6), passed in 1990, addresses non-surface fault rupture earth-
1 Called the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act until renamed in 1993.
2 California Geological Survey, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones,
http://www.consrv.ca.gov/CGS/rghm/ap/, accessed September 15, 2011.
3 Earthquake Fault Zones are regulatory zones around active faults. The zones
vary in width, but average about ¼-mile wide. http://www.consrv.ca.gov/
cgs/rghm/ap/index.htm, accessed September 15, 2011.
4 California Geological Survey, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones,
http://www.consrv.ca.gov/CGS/rghm/ap/, accessed September 15, 2011.
5 California Geological Survey, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones,
http://www.consrv.ca.gov/CGS/rghm/ap/affected.htm, accessed on September 15,
2011.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY
4.6-4
quake hazards, including liquefaction and seismically-inducted landslides.
Under this Act, seismic hazard zones are to be mapped by the State Geologist
to assist local governments in land use planning. The Seismic Hazards Map-
ping Act states that “it is necessary to identify and map seismic hazard zones
in order for cities and counties to adequately prepare the safety element of
their general plans and to encourage land use management policies and regula-
tions to reduce and mitigate those hazards to protect public health and safe-
ty.” Section 2697(a) of the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act states that: “cities
and counties shall require, prior to the approval of a project located in a seis-
mic hazard zone, a geotechnical report defining and delineating any seismic
hazard.”6 Nevada County has not been mapped under the Seismic Hazards
Mapping Act yet since the State has prioritized higher risk areas, such as the
San Francisco Bay Area and the Los Angeles/Riverside areas.
4. Local Regulations and Policies
a. Town of Truckee General Plan (2025)
The Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan includes goals and policies to reduce
risks associated with geology, soils, and seismic hazards to an acceptable level.
Table 4.6-1 lists these goals and policies.
b. Town of Truckee Municipal Code
The Town enforces the CBC, discussed above, through its Municipal Code,
Title 15 Building and Construction. Title 15 was adopted by the Town for
the purpose of prescribing regulations for erecting, construction, enlarge-
ment, alteration, repair, improving, removal, conversion, demolition, occu-
pancy, equipment use, height, and area of buildings and structures. The
Town Building Code, specifically Section 15.03.130, Earthquake Design, in-
corporates the CBC.
6 California Public Resources Code, Division 2, Chapter 7.8, Article 7.8, Sec-
tion 2691(c), http://www.consrv.ca.gov/cgs/codes/prc/chap-7-8.htm, accessed on
September 15, 2011.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY
4.6-5
TABLE 4.6-1 TRUCKEE GENERAL PLAN POLICIES PERTAINING TO
GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMIC HAZARDS
Policy or
Goal No. Goals and Policies
Goal COS-12 Protect the Town's soil resources from erosion.
COS-P12.1 Preserve slopes of 30 percent or greater as open space and avoid
slopes of 20 percent to 30 percent if there are other, more suitable
areas for development with slopes less than 20 percent.
COS-P12.2 Require projects that require earthwork and grading, including
cuts and fills for roads, to incorporate measures to minimize ero-
sion and sedimentation. Typical measures include project design
that conforms with natural contours and site topography, maxim-
izing retention of natural vegetation, and implementing erosion
control Best Management Practices.
Goal SAF-1 Reduce the risk of injury, loss of life and property damage from earth-
quakes, landslides, and other geologic hazards.
SAF-P1.1 Group and locate new residential development in such a way as to
avoid areas of hazard including steep slopes and areas of unstable
soils.
SAF-P1.2 Encourage retrofitting of structures, particularly older buildings,
to withstand earthquake shaking and landslides. Ensure that new
development incorporates design and engineering that minimizes
the risk of damage from seismic events and land sliding.
SAF-P1.3 Require soils reports for new development in areas where geologic
risks are known to exist. Such reports should include recommen-
dations for appropriate engineering and other measures to address
identified risks.
Source: Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan.
c. Nevada County Grading Ordinance
The Nevada County Land Use Code Chapter 5, Buildings, Article 19, Grad-
ing is to safeguard life, limb, property and the public welfare by regulating
grading and construction activities that result in a land disturbance on private
property. Section D. Engineered Grading Requirements identifies the re-
quirements for the Soils Engineering Report with regards to grading.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY
4.6-6
B. Existing Conditions
This section provides a description of the existing conditions on the project
site relative to geology, soils, and seismic hazards. A discussion of the meth-
ods for analysis is also included.
1. Methodology
The project geologists from Geocon performed a field reconnaissance of the
project site on June 8 and 22, 2004 and December 15, 2005 and staff from The
Planning Center | DC&E conducted a site visit on May 4, 2011. Topograph-
ic site plans, geologic literature and maps for the area were reviewed and ste-
reoscopic aerial photograph analysis of the project site was performed prior
to observing the project site. The site conditions with regards to geology,
soils, and seismic hazards have not changed since the June 2006 surveys were
conducted by Geocon Consultants, Inc. for Quad Knopf.
2. Regional and Local Geology
a. Site Topography
The site topography generally slopes gently downward to the northwest
along two ridges. Slopes are generally 1 to 10 percent, but with some isolated
areas exceeding 30 percent. Elevations on the site range from approximately
5,920 feet above mean sea level (MSL) in the northwest to 6,120 feet above
MSL in the southeast. The project site is a forested area with meadows and
wetlands that trend northwesterly through the central and southern portions
of the site.
b. Soils
According to the U.S. Department of the Interior Soil Resource Inventory
for the Martis Peak Quadrangle, four soils types occur on the project site.
These soils are shown on the Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) Soil Survey, Figure 4.6-1. The southwestern and southeastern cor-
ners of the project site are mapped as Kyburz Trojan Complex, 9 to 30 per-
cent slopes (FUE), described as brown, gravelly, sandy loam, moderately slow
permeability, and well-drained with high erosion hazard.
FIGURE 4.6-1
SOILS MAP
Source: Town of Truckee, 2006 / NRCS, 2006 / Quad Knopf, 2007
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
ARE
AQB
AQB
FUE STE
FUE
FUE
Job No.: 04099
Source: Town of Truckee, 2006 / NRCS, 2006 / Quad Knopf, 2007
CANYON SPRINGS
NRCS SOIL SURVEY Figure 3.5-2
G le n s h i r e
Drive
W
hitehorse
R o a d
M
artis
Peak
Road
D o r c h e s t e r D rive
Legend
Project Boundary
Town Limit ±NRCS Soils
AQB, AQUOLLS AND BOROLLS, 0 TO 5 PERCENT SLOPES
ARE, ALDI-KYBURZ COMPLEX, 2 TO 30 PERCENT SLOPES
FUE, KYBURZ-TROJAN COMPLEX, 9 TO 30 PERCENT SLOPES
STE, RUBBLE LAND-JORGE COMPLEX, 2 TO 30 PERCENT SLOPES
0 1,500 3,000750 Feet
NORTH
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY
4.6-8
Rubble Land-Jorge Complex (STE) is also mapped within the southeast cor-
ner of the project site. This soil occupies 2 to 30 percent slopes, is described
as angular stones and cobbles with some soil, moderate permeability, well-
drained with high erosion hazard.
Aquolls and Borolls soils (AQBA) are mapped as occupying the lower por-
tions of the two northwest trending drainages on the project site. These soils
occupy 0 to 5 percent slopes and are composed of thick and dark colored sand
to clay, have slow to very slow permeability and high erosion potential.
The remainder of the project site, approximately 80 percent, is occupied by
Aldi Kyburz Complex (ARE). These soils occupy 2 to 30 percent slopes and
consist of brown, sandy, gravelly loam with slow to moderately slow perme-
ability and high erosion hazard. The soils observed during the field recon-
naissance match those mapped on the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) inventory.
c. Geologic Formations
The geologic formations in the project area include the Juniper Flat Alluvium
of Upper Pleistocene age. Underlying the Juniper Flat Alluvium is thought
to be Hirshdale Olivine Latite of Mid Pleistocene age. In general, alluvial
material consists of loose to medium dense, moist sand, silty sand, and clayey
sand with cobble, boulders, and a moderate amount of roots. A small out-
crop of basalt, probably of Quaternary age, was noted on the southern por-
tion of the project site. The rock types observed generally agree with those
shown on the various published geologic maps. Based on the test pit data
presented in the Geotechnical Report, the depth to bedrock on the site gener-
ally exceeds 11 feet below ground surface.
3. Seismicity and Seismic Hazards
a. Seismic Zones
The seismic zones in the United States range from 1 to 4 with the higher
number representing the greater the earthquake danger. The State of Califor-
nia lies within Seismic Zone 3 or 4 and the Town of Truckee lies within Zone
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY
4.6-9
3. While all of California has moderate to high seismic activity, the Sierra
Nevada range is regarded as an area of relatively high seismicity.
b. Fault Rupture
Ground surface rupture results when the movement along a fault is sufficient
to create a gap or break along the upper edge of the fault zone at the surface.
While there are numerous faults that are either active, potentially active or of
unknown activity located within the vicinity of the project site, the project
area is not located within either an Earthquake Fault Zone or Alquist-Priolo
Zone.7 However, as illustrated on Figure SAF-1, Earthquake Faults and
Seismic Activity in Nevada County, of the General Plan’s Safety Element, the
project site is located in Zone III. Figure SAF-1 identifies Zones I, II and III,
with probable damage in Zone III considered to be major and probable max-
imum intensity considered IX or X on the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale.8
Earthquake magnitude is also measured on the Richter scale9 or as moment
magnitude.10 Earthquake magnitude is a quantitative measure of the strength
of an earthquake or the strain energy released by it, as determined by seismo-
graphic or geologic observations. Earthquake intensity is a qualitative meas-
ure of the effects a given earthquake has on people, structures, or objects.
The nearest known historically active fault to the project site is the Dog Val-
ley fault zone located about 3.5 miles northwest of the project site and is con-
7 California Geological Survey, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones,
http://www.consrv.ca.gov/CGS/rghm/ap/affected.htm, accessed on September 15,
2011.
8 The Mercalli Intensity Scale is a subjective measure of the observed effects
(human reactions, structural damage, geologic effects) of an earthquake expressed in
Roman numerals from I to XII, with the higher the number representing the greater
intensity.
9 Richter scale is a measure of the size or energy release of an earthquake at its
source. The scale is logarithmic; the wave amplitude of each number on the scale is 10
times greater than that of the previous whole number.
10 The moment magnitude provides an estimate of earthquake size that is valid
over the complete range of magnitudes.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY
4.6-10
sidered to be capable of generating an earthquake with a Maximum Credible
Earthquake (MCE) moment magnitude of at least 5.9. The MCE is defined as
the maximum earthquake that appears capable of occurring under the pres-
ently known tectonic framework. The Dog Valley fault is considered to be
the source of the 1948 Richter magnitude 6.0 and the 1966 moment magni-
tude 5.9 earthquake. The 1966 earthquake is commonly known as the
Truckee Earthquake and approximately 10 miles of ground breakage extend-
ing from Prosser Reservoir to Hoke Valley occurred as a result of this earth-
quake. Another potentially active fault is located approximately 1 mile to the
west of the project site11 and may correspond to the “Unnamed fault near
Joerger Ranch.”12 Other active faults near the project site are the North Ta-
hoe fault and the West Tahoe fault located about 13 and 20 miles to the south
of the project site, respectively.
Evidence of active faulting was not observed on the project site during the
field reconnaissance; however, one fault of unknown activity was preliminari-
ly mapped as being a concealed trace traversing northwesterly through the
central portion of the project site.13 The interpreted location of this fault is
shown on the Geologic Map, Figure 4.6-2. The existence and actual location
of this fault has not been confirmed.
11 State of California Department of Conservation, 2010 Fault Activity Map of
California, California Geological Survey, Geologic Data Map No. 6,
http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/FAM/faultactivitymap.html, retrieved, September
15, 2011.
12 Sydnor, R.H., 1991, Notes on the Faults of the Truckee Tahoe Area, Placer,
Nevada, and Sierra Counties, California, California Division of Mines and Geology,
Fault Evaluation Report FER-226.
13 Schweickert, R.A., Larhren, R.E., Smith, K.D. and Howle, J.F., 2004, Pre-
liminary Map of Pleistocene to Holocene Faults in the Lake Tahoe Basin, California
and Nevada, Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, Open-File Report 2000-4.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT EIR
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
FIGURE 4.6-2
GEOLOGIC MAP
Source: SCO Planning, Engineering & Surveying, April 2011.
GEOCON, 2006 / Quad Knopf, 2007.
4000 800 FeetNORTH
R
R
Edinburgh Drive
Gated Access
Qal
Qal
Qal
Qoal (b)
Qoal (b)
Qoal (b)
Qoal (b)
Qoal (t)
Qoal (t)
Qoal (b)
?
?
?
Test
Pit
Test
Pit
Test
Pit
Qal
Test
Pit
Basalt
Outcrop
Well
Proposed
Subdivision
Configuration
Shallow
Ending Area
Substation
Elec
t
r
i
c
a
l
L
i
n
e
E
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
Test
Pit
Erosion Scour
in Creek
Small
Erosion
Gullies
Qal
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
GEOLOGIC MAP
FIGURE 4.6-2Source: SCO Planning, Engineering & Surveying, April 2011.
GEOCON, 2006 / Quad Knopf, 2007.
FIGURE 4.6-2
GEOLOGIC MAP4000800 Feet
NORTH
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY
4.6-12
c. Ground Shaking
The amount of ground shaking at a particular site is a function of earthquake
magnitude, the type of earthquake source (i.e. type of fault), distance between
the site and the earthquake source; the geology of the site, and how the earth-
quake waves decrease or attenuate as they travel from their source to the site
in question. Ground-shaking during an earthquake is measured through peak
ground acceleration. Peak ground acceleration values are reported in units of
gravity (g). The larger the earthquake and the shorter the distance between
the earthquake source and the site, the greater the amount of accompanying
ground shaking. The geologic materials through which the earthquake ener-
gy travels towards the site act to decrease or attenuate the amount of shaking.
A number of attenuation relationships have been developed from recordings
of earthquake shaking that relate earthquake size, distance from the earth-
quake source, and geologic conditions to the amount of ground shaking that
can be expected at the site. Structures founded on thick soft soil deposits are
more likely to experience more destructive shaking, with higher amplitude
and lower frequency, than structures founded on bedrock. In addition, thick
soft soil deposits far distances from earthquake epicenters may result in seis-
mic accelerations significantly greater than expected in bedrock.
d. Liquefaction
Soil liquefaction, the condition in which soils below the groundwater table
temporarily lose their solid state, results from loss of strength during cyclic
loading, such as that imposed by earthquakes. When seismic ground-shaking
occurs, the soil is subject to seismic shear stresses that may cause the soil to
undergo deformations or changed appearance. If the soil undergoes virtually
unlimited deformation without developing significant resistance, it is said to
have liquefied or become liquid. When soils consolidate during and following
liquefaction, ground settlement occurs. Soils most susceptible to liquefaction
are clean, loose, saturated, uniformly graded, fine-grained sands. Shallow
groundwater is considered a factor as it creates the saturated condition of the
soil. The liquefaction of soils causes surface distress, loss of bearing capacity,
and settlement of structures that are founded on the soils.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY
4.6-13
e. Lurch Cracking and Lateral Spreading
Soil lurching refers to the rolling motion on the ground surface caused by the
passage of seismic surface waves. Soil lurching is likely to be most severe
where the thickness of soft sediments varies to a noticeable degree under
structures. Lateral spreading typically occurs as the movement or stretching
of relatively flat-lying alluvial material toward an open or “free” face such as
an open body of water, channel, or excavation. Generally, in soils, this
movement or lateral spreading is due to failure along a weak flat and/or level
surface, and may often be associated with liquefaction, the process of firm soil
being converted into a liquid state. As cracks develop within the weakened or
failing material, blocks of soil displace laterally or spread out toward the open
area. Cracking and lateral movement or spreading may gradually spread
away from the face as blocks continue to break free. Lateral spreading can
occur within areas having potential for liquefaction.
Under the existing conditions soil lurching and lateral spreading would prob-
ably be limited to the slopes within the drainage areas. Due to shallow com-
petent regolith and bedrock materials, the risk of seismic settlement at the
project site is thought to be low except within the wetland areas where no
development will occur.
f. Slope Stability, Erosion and Landslides
The United States Department of the Interior Soil Resource Inventory of the
Martis Peak Quadrangle generally describes the soils on the site as having a
high erosion potential. During the field reconnaissance, several localized are-
as of erosion were observed within the ephemeral drainages. The eroded are-
as were generally associated with areas of slope failure or areas where roads
and man-made trails provide an exposed earthen surface.
Five small landslides were noted within the drainages on the northern portion
of the site, at the approximate locations depicted on the Geologic Map, Figure
4.6-2. The slides appear to be shallow and within colluvium. Currently sta-
ble conditions may be changed by slope alterations due to cuts or fills, and
changes to drainage patterns. In general, the potential for large scale landslid-
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY
4.6-14
ing is low. Shallow soil creep has also occurred within the drainages men-
tioned above, at the approximate locations depicted on the Geologic Map,
Figure 4.6-2.
Additional areas of slope instability and/or significant erosion were not ob-
served during the December 2005 or May 2011 follow-up reconnaissance.
g. Avalanches
Avalanches can occur as a result of moderate to large earthquakes, which can
cause rock and snow to move vertically and laterally downslope. These haz-
ards typically affect structures which are located at the base of slopes or with-
in close proximity to the area of flow. Steep slopes, shallow soil develop-
ment, excess water, and lack of shear strength in the area result in slope insta-
bilities including landslides, earthslips, mudflows, and soil creeps. Seismic
activity induces some landslides but most slides result from the weight of rain-
saturated soil and rock exceeding the shear strength of the underlying materi-
al.
The potential for avalanches is considered low because development on the
project site would not occur adjacent to the base of a steep slope or within
close proximity to an area of avalanche flow.
h. Expansive Soils
Expansive soils are those having a shrink–swell potential resulting from the
presence of clays of high plasticity. The soils contain mixed–layer clay min-
erals that increase and decrease in volume upon wetting and drying, respec-
tively. Expansive soils can cause damage to foundations and slabs unless
properly treated during construction. Based on the review of data and site
reconnaissance, expansive soils are not likely an issue of significance for the
project site.
i. Volcanic Hazards
The area in the vicinity of the project has been volcanically active in the past.
Published geologic literature shows a volcanic cinder cone approximately
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY
4.6-15
1 mile northwest of the project site. Radiometric age dating of the volcanic
rocks from the cinder cone indicated a date for volcanism of 1.3 million years
before present. Identified prehistoric volcanoes located in the Tahoe Basin or
vicinity, are currently considered dormant or inactive. There have been no
indications that any will become active in the near future. There are current-
ly no predictions as to when volcanic activity will resume in the area.
j. Seiche and Tsunami
A seiche is a wave that oscillates in lakes, bays, or gulfs from a few minutes to
a few hours as a result of seismic or atmospheric disturbances. A tsunami is a
very large ocean wave caused by an underwater earthquake or volcanic erup-
tion. The potential for seiches and tsunamis to impact the project site is con-
sidered nil because there are no large bodies of water in close proximity to the
site. Donner Lake is located approximately 8.5 miles to the southwest of the
project site and Lake Tahoe is located over 12 miles northwest of the project
site. Reservoirs located near the site include the Boca Reservoir located ap-
proximately 2.5 miles to the northwest of the project site, Prosser Creek Res-
ervoir located approximately 3.5 miles to the northwest of the project site,
and the Stampede Reservoir located approximately 8 miles to the northwest
of the project site.
C. Standards of Significance
The proposed project would have a significant impact with regard to geology,
soils, and seismicity if it would:
¤ Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, in-
cluding the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
Ÿ Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Ge-
ologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known
fault.
Ÿ Strong seismic ground shaking.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY
4.6-16
Ÿ Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction.
Ÿ Landslides.
¤ Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.
¤ Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would be-
come unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or
off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse.
¤ Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property.
¤ Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for
the disposal of wastewater.
D. Impact Discussion
1. Project Impacts
a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, in-
cluding the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geolo-
gist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault.
The State of California has moderate to high seismic activity, and the Sierra
Nevada range is regarded as an area of relatively high seismicity. Major faults
that have historically produced earthquakes of the greatest magnitudes in the
Truckee area include the Dog Valley fault, 3.5 miles northwest of the project
site, and the North Tahoe fault and the West Tahoe fault located about 13
and 20 miles to the south of the project site, respectively.
The entire State of California lies within Seismic Zone 3 or 4 and the Town
specifically lies within Seismic Zone 3, which exhibits moderate seismic risk.
However, the project site and surrounding area is not located on any known
active or potentially active fault trace and is not within an Earthquake Fault
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY
4.6-17
Zone or Alquist-Priolo Zone. While a concealed fault has been preliminarily
mapped through the central portion of the project site, the faulting activity is
unknown and has not been verified. The construction of dwellings in the
vicinity of the concealed fault trace could expose residences to damage from
fault rupture; however, barring the construction of housing directly on an
active or potentially active fault, the seismic risk of fault rupture at the site is
not considered to be significantly greater than that of other developments in
eastern Nevada County. However, considering the activity status of the on-
site concealed fault trace is unknown, project impacts related to fault rupture
would be potentially significant.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking.
During the service life of the project, the site is likely to experience at least
one earthquake that may produce potentially damaging ground shaking in the
event of a major earthquake resulting from one of the faults previously de-
scribed or along the concealed fault on the project site. The State earthquake
protection law (California Health and Safety Code 19100 et seq.) requires that
structures be designed to resist stresses produced by lateral forces caused by
wind and earthquakes. Specific minimum seismic safety and structural design
requirements are set forth in CBC and the Town’s Municipal Code Title 15
Building and Construction Code as well. All new construction on the project
site is required to comply with the applicable standards, including the strong-
er construction standards for buildings in Seismic Zone 3. Consistency with
the CBC and the Town’s Municipal Code Title 15 Building and Construction
Code 15.03.130 Earthquake Design, as required for all building permits,
would reduce the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related
events.
While there are no absolute guarantees when considering acts of nature such
as earthquakes, the building requirements have been designed to reduce the
likelihood of damage as a result of ground shaking. Therefore, conformance
with current CBC requirements, as well as the Town’s earthquake design
requirements would reduce the potential for structures on the project site to
sustain damage during an earthquake event and project impacts related to
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY
4.6-18
ground shaking would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are
required.
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction.
The Geotechnical Report for the project site indicates that various types of
soil of unknown thickness occur on the project site. The soils on the project
site comprise gravelly and sandy loam, stones and cobbles, and thick sand to
clay. In general, the potential for soil liquefaction is low where dense fill,
topsoil and/or alluvium are less than approximately 3 to 4 feet thick. The
subsurface conditions as presented in the test pit logs included in the Ge-
otechnical Report show the potential for liquefaction at the project site is
very low and the depth to bedrock on the site generally exceeds 11 feet below
ground surface. Furthermore, due to relatively shallow competent regolith
and bedrock materials, the risk of seismic settlement at the site is also consid-
ered to be low, except within the wetland areas where no development is
proposed. Therefore, strong ground shaking associated with a large earth-
quake on a nearby fault would not trigger soil liquefaction and associated
ground failures on the project site. Ground failures associated with soil lique-
faction include post-liquefaction reconsolidation, lateral spreading, and loss of
bearing support. Impacts related to seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are war-
ranted.
iv. Landslides.
Landslides and soil instability is affected by slope and geology. Exposed soil
on steeper slopes is susceptible to instability resulting in landslides, as a result
of heavy rains, excavation, or earthquakes. Five areas adjacent to on-site
drainages were noted as areas of potential landslides. However, the potential
for the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides is considered low
because development on the project site would not occur adjacent to the base
of a steep slope and the five identified landslide areas are not adjacent to the
proposed residential lots.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY
4.6-19
As illustrated on Figure 4.6-2, all drainage areas and potential landslide areas
would be maintained in the dedicated open space and would allow for future
access by geologists as necessary. Furthermore, consistent with General Plan
Policies COS-P12.1 and SAF-P1.1, while the project site has slopes ranging
from 1 to 10 percent and some isolated areas exceeding 30 percent, no housing
would be developed on slopes of 20 to 30 percent. Areas on the project site
with slopes of 30 percent or greater would be persevered as Open Space. All
building envelopes are proposed outside of the Town-required 50-foot setback
from designated 100-year floodplains for the two blue line waterways. A
minimum 50-foot setback to building envelopes would be maintained along
all other on-site ephemeral drainages, although not a Town requirement.
Private housing lot boundaries are proposed within 50 feet of designated 100-
year floodplain. However, since landslide areas have been identified on the
project site, impacts resulting from landslides would be potentially significant.
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.
The soils located on the proposed project site are described as having high
erosion potential and several localized areas of erosion have been observed
within the drainages. The eroded areas were generally associated with areas
of slope failure or areas where roads and man-made trails provide an exposed
earthen surface. Adequate drainage is essential to reduce the potential for
erosion or differential soil movement. Development activities under the pro-
posed project would involve grading and excavation that could result in ero-
sion of soils and the sloping topography of the project site could increase the
potential for erosion. As illustrated on Figure 3-10 in Chapter 3, Project De-
scription, of this Draft EIR, project grading would occur and be maintained
such that surface drainage is directed away from the proposed development.
Nonetheless, the soil erosion/loss of topsoil may occur during grading and
earthwork on the project site and may cause a potentially significant impact.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY
4.6-20
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would be-
come unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or
off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse.
As previously discussed, the potential for liquefaction at the project site is
very low and the depth to bedrock on the site generally exceeds 11 feet below
ground surface. Due to relatively shallow competent regolith and bedrock
materials, the risk of seismic settlement at the site is also considered to be low,
except within the wetland areas where no development is proposed. Fur-
thermore, soil lurching and lateral spreading would probably be limited to
the slopes within the drainage areas, where no development is proposed.
However, a concealed fault has been preliminarily mapped through the cen-
tral portion of the project site and the faulting activity is unknown and has
not been verified. Therefore, the project could be located on a geologic unit
that is unstable and impacts would be potentially significant.
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property.
Expansive soils contain clay minerals that attract and absorb water. The soils
swell when subjected to moisture, causing structural problems through differ-
ential movement. As noted, the soils on the project site consist of gravelly
and sandy loam, stones, and cobbles, and thick sand to clay, which are not
considered expansive soils. Therefore, no expansive soils have been mapped
or encountered on the project site and project impacts related to expansive
soils would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for
the disposal of wastewater.
No septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems are proposed as
part of the project. Therefore, project impacts related to soils incapable of
supporting these uses would be less than significant and no mitigation
measures are required.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY
4.6-21
2. Cumulative Impacts
This section analyzes potential impacts to agricultural and forest resources
that could occur from a combination of the project with the Town buildout
identified in the Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan and reasonably foreseea-
ble projects in the surrounding area. The geographic scope of this analysis is
taken as the Town of Truckee sphere of influence (SOI), as defined in the
Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan and reasonably foreseeable projects in the
surrounding area. Therefore, a cumulative impact would be considered signif-
icant if, taken together with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects
in the Town of Truckee SOI and other reasonably foreseeable projects in the
surrounding area, it would result in the potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving a fault rupture, seismic
ground shaking or ground failure, or landslides, loss of topsoil would occur,
and if the project is located on an unstable soil.
As described above, the project would fully mitigate impacts related to geolo-
gy and soils. Therefore, development on the project site would not contrib-
ute to a cumulative impact related to geology and seismic hazards. Addition-
ally, the Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan contains policies that protect res-
idents and visitors from geologic seismic hazards. These policies, listed above
on Table 4.6-1. Continued implementation of Town of Truckee 2025 General
Plan policies related to geology and soils would ensure that cumulative im-
pacts associated with the geologic and seismic hazards would be less than sig-
nificant.
Overall, cumulative impacts to geology and soils from the buildout of the
proposed project in combination with other past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable projects in the Truckee SOI would be less than significant.
E. Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact GEO-1: The concealed fault trace identified on the project site could
be unstable and could expose people or structures to potential substantial ad-
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY
4.6-22
verse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a
known earthquake fault and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lat-
eral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse.
Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Prior to approval of the final map, the pro-
ject applicant shall obtain a Town-approved qualified geologist to per-
form trenching in the vicinity of the concealed fault trace on the project
site to determine whether an active or potentially active fault is present.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
Impact GEO-2: The five areas adjacent to on-site drainages noted as areas of
potential landslides on Figure 4.6-2 of the Draft EIR could expose people or
structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving a landslide.
Mitigation Measure GEO-2: Existing landslides shall be repaired to pre-
vent further landslides during the construction phase corresponding to
the landslide location.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
Impact GEO-3: During grading and earthwork on the project site soil ero-
sion and the loss of topsoil may occur.
Mitigation Measure GEO-3: The project applicant shall be responsible
for preparing a site-specific erosion control and grading plan to be im-
plemented during all phases of construction and subject to review and
approval by the Town of Truckee Public Works Department and the
Nevada County Public Works Department. The site-specific erosion
control and grading plans shall utilize Best Management Practices (BMPs)
in accordance with the California Stormwater Quality Association Storm-
water Best Management Practice Handbook to ensure that pre-project flows
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY
4.6-23
are equal to or less than post-project flows. The BMPs shall include one
or more of the following:
1. Directing some of the flow to sheet discharge onto grassy areas or
open space.
2. The placement of water quality interceptor devices.
3. Use of rock-lined ditches below pipe outlets.
4. Vegetated grass lined swales.
5. Minimizing drainage concentration from impervious surfaces.
6. Construction management techniques.
7. Erosion protection at culvert outfall locations.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY
4.6-24
4.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.7-1
This section discusses the regulatory framework for global climate change,
provides data on the existing global climate setting, and evaluates potential
global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with the proposed project.
Modeled project emissions are estimated based on the expected waste genera-
tion, energy consumption, and water use of the proposed project. Fuel com-
busted by motor vehicle trips generated by the proposed project is also ac-
counted and reported as carbon dioxide emissions.
This section then evaluates whether the proposed project could cause a cumu-
latively considerable contribution to climate change by conflicting with re-
duction measures under State regulations. The information and analysis pro-
vided in this section rely primarily on the Climate Action Team 2006 Final
Report, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment
Reports, and various California Air Resources Board (ARB) staff reports.
Other related global climate change documents are also cited that provide
background information on the impacts of GHG emissions.
A. Regulatory Framework
This section summarizes existing regulatory framework and other govern-
mental activities addressing GHG emissions and global climate change.
1. Federal Laws and Regulations
In February 2002, the United States government announced a comprehensive
strategy to reduce the GHG intensity of the American economy by 18 per-
cent over the 10-year period from 2002 to 2012. GHG intensity measures the
ratio of GHG emissions to economic output. New and refined technologies
offer great promise to reduce GHG emissions significantly. The federal gov-
ernment established the multi-agency Climate Change Technology Program
(CCTP) in February 2002 to accelerate the development and deployment of
key technologies.
In February 2002, the United States government also announced a climate
change research initiative to focus on key remaining gaps in climate change
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.7-2
science. To meet this goal, the federal multiagency Climate Change Science
Program (CCSP) was established to investigate natural and human-induced
changes in the Earth’s global environmental system; to monitor, understand,
and predict global change; and to provide a sound scientific basis for national
and international decision-making. The CCTP works closely with CCSP to
make further progress in understanding and addressing global climate change.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) primary role in CCSP
is evaluating the potential consequences of climate variability and the effects
on air quality, water quality, ecosystems, and human health in the United
States.
Currently there are no adopted federal regulations to control global climate
change. However, recent authority has been granted to the EPA that may
change the voluntary approach currently taken to address this issue. On
April 2, 2007, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the EPA has the
authority to regulate CO2 emissions under the federal Clean Air Act (CAA).
Over a decade ago, most countries joined an international treaty, the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), to begin
to consider what can be done to reduce global warming and to cope with the
physical and socioeconomic effects of climate change. More recently, a num-
ber of nations have approved an addition to the treaty: the Kyoto Protocol,
which has more powerful (and legally binding) measures.
Because it will affect virtually all major sectors of the economy, the Kyoto
Protocol is considered to be the most far-reaching agreement on environment
and sustainable development ever adopted. Most of the world’s countries
eventually agreed to the Protocol, but some nations (including the United
States) chose not to ratify it. The Kyoto Protocol became law on February
16, 2005 for signatory nations.
As of July 2008, 182 countries have ratified the agreement. Participating na-
tions are separated into Annex 1 countries (i.e., industrialized nations) and
Non-Annex 1 countries (i.e., developing nations) that have different require-
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.7-3
ments for GHG reductions. The goal of the Protocol is to achieve overall
emissions reduction targets for six GHGs by 2012. The six GHGs regulated
under the Protocol are CO2, CH4, N2O, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluoro-
carbons (HFCs), and perfluorocarbons (PFCs). Each nation must reduce
GHG emissions by a certain percentage below 1990 levels (e.g., 8 percent re-
duction for the European Union, 6 percent reduction for Japan). The average
reduction target for nations participating in the Kyoto Protocol is approxi-
mately 5 percent below 1990 levels. Although the United States has not rati-
fied the Protocol, on February 14, 2002, it established a goal of an 18 percent
reduction in GHG emissions intensity by 2012. GHG intensity is the ratio of
GHG emissions to economic output (i.e., gross domestic product).
2. State Laws and Regulations
Recent state law requires projects to evaluate potential emissions of GHGs
under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). According to
California’s Office of the Attorney General and other State guidance, global
climate change can be considered an “effect on the environment” and an indi-
vidual project’s incremental contribution to global climate change can have a
cumulatively considerable impact.
¤ Assembly Bill 1493. In a response to the transportation sector’s signifi-
cant contribution to California’s CO2 emissions, Assembly Bill 1493 (AB
1493, Pavley) was enacted in 2002. AB 1493 requires ARB to set GHG
emission (essentially fuel economy) standards for 2009 passenger vehicles
and light trucks and subsequent model years. When fully phased-in, the
near-term (2009 to 2012) standards would reduce GHG emissions approx-
imately 22 percent compared to the 2002 fleet. The midterm (2013 to
2016) standards would provide a 30 percent reduction. The U.S. De-
partment of Transportation has recently adopted similar measures (fleet
fuel economy) for the rest of the country.
¤ Executive Order S-3-05. In June 2005, then Governor Schwarzenegger
established California’s GHG emissions reduction targets in Executive
Order S-3-05. The Executive Order established the following goals:
GHG emissions should be reduced to 2000 levels by 2010; GHG emis-
sions should be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020; and GHG emissions
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.7-4
should be reduced to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The Execu-
tive Order requires multi-agency coordination to reduce GHG emissions
to the target levels. The Climate Action Team was formed to comply
with the Executive Order, which released a report in 2006 which outlines
various actions business, local government, and communities could take
through State incentive and regulatory programs which would help the
State achieve the emission reduction targets.
¤ Assembly Bill 32 (California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006).
California’s major initiative for reducing GHG emissions is Assembly
Bill 32 (AB 32), the “Global Warming Solutions Act,” passed in 2006. This
law aims at reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, a reduction
of approximately 30 percent, and then an 80 percent reduction below
1990 levels by 2050, essentially the same goals as EO S-3-05. The ARB
has established the State 1990 baseline CO2e emissions at 427 million
metric tons (MMT). This means the State must reduce emissions by 169
MMT below expected business-as-usual emissions by 2020.
¤ Senate Bill 97 (SB 97, 2007) required the Governor’s Office of Planning
and Research (OPR) to modify the existing State CEQA Guidelines to de-
scribe how lead agencies should evaluate and mitigate a project’s GHG
emissions. On December 30, 2009, the Natural Resources Agency adopt-
ed amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines related to climate change.
OPR published the amendments on January 1, 2010, and they became ef-
fective on March 18, 2010.
¤ Senate Bill 375. Senate Bill 375 (SB 375), signed into law in 2008, pro-
vides emissions reduction goals and incentives for local governments and
developers to adopt climate-friendly growth patterns. SB 375 directed
ARB to develop regional emission reduction targets. Regional planning
agencies are also required to submit land use and transportation plans to
meet these GHG targets.
Additionally, SB 375 provides incentives for creating attractive, walkable, and
sustainable communities and revitalizing existing communities. The bill ex-
empts home builders from certain CEQA requirements if they propose pro-
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.7-5
jects consistent with the new sustainable community’s strategies. SB375 is
also intended to encourage the development of additional alternative trans-
portation options to promote healthy lifestyles and reduce traffic congestion.
California Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Title 24, Part 6 of the Cali-
fornia Code of Regulations, known as the Building Energy Efficiency Stand-
ards, was established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce
California’s energy consumption. The standards are updated periodically to
allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency
technologies and methods. On January 12, 2010, the California Building
Standards Commission adopted CALGreen and became the first state in the
United States to adopt a statewide green building standards code. CALGreen
will require new buildings to reduce water consumption by 20 percent, divert
50 percent of construction waste from landfills, and install low pollutant-
emitting materials. The mandatory provisions of CALGreen are effective on
January 1, 2011.
3. Local Regulations and Policies
As discussed in Section 4.3, Air Quality, the Town’s General Plan has nu-
merous policies that are related to improving air quality including over 100
policies that would have a positive impact on air quality and reduction of
emissions, including policies that focus on bicycle and pedestrian programs,
mixed-use and open space development, transit, and transportation control
measures. Goals and policies that support energy conservation and waste
reduction are shown in Table 4.7-1. A detailed policy consistency analysis is
included in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, of this Draft EIR. The
Town does not have an adopted Climate Action Plan or similar document
that focuses on the issue of GHG. It should be noted that the Northern Sier-
ra Air Quality Management District (NSAQMD) has adopted Rule 522 for
permitting of stationary sources that would produce GHG emissions at levels
that would require a Federal reporting permit. However, the NSAQMD has
not adopted a Climate Action Plan or other policies or regulations which
specifically regulate project-related GHG emissions.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.7-6
TABLE 4.7-1 TRUCKEE GENERAL PLAN POLICIES PERTAINING TO
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Policy or
Goal No. Goals and Policies
Goal H-4 Balance the need and provision of housing in the community
with its impacts on the environment and needed public facilities
and services.
H-P4.1 Encourage residential design that promotes energy efficiency and
sustainable building practices and reduces greenhouse gas emis-
sions.
H-P4.2 Encourage residential development that reduces infrastructure
and other development costs, preserves and enhances important
environmental resources, and maintains important areas as open
space.
Goal COS-15 Encourage conservation of energy and fuel resources, strive to
reduce generation of solid waste, and promote environmental
sustainability.
COS-P15.1 Support recycling programs town-wide, including the curbside
recycling and business waste reduction programs.
COS-P15.5 Encourage new private and public development to maximize
opportunities for use of passive or natural heating and cooling
and encourage sites with solar opportunities to be designed with
natural heating and cooling principles.
COS-P15.6 Maintain or surpass the 2003 annual solid waste reduction rate of
approximately 70 percent throughout the life of the General
Plan.
COS-P15.8 Reduce the use of non-biodegradable and non-recyclable materi-
als.
Source: Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan.
B. Existing Conditions
1. Greenhouse Gases and Global Climate Change
Carbon dioxide and other compounds are called GHGs because they allow
visible light to pass through but strongly absorb energy in the infrared and
near-infrared spectrums. This infrared energy absorption causes the atmos-
phere to warm. Global climate change is the observed increase in the average
temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans in recent decades. The
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.7-7
Earth’s average near-surface atmospheric temperature rose 0.6 ± 0.2° Celsius
(°C) or 1.1 ± 0.4° Fahrenheit (°F) in the 20th century. The prevailing scien-
tific opinion on climate change is that most of the warming observed over the
last 50 years is attributable to human activities. Other aspects of the climate
are also changing such as rainfall patterns, snow and ice cover, and sea level.
The increased amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other GHGs are the
primary causes of the human-induced component of warming. GHGs are
released by the burning of fossil fuels, land clearing, agriculture, and other
activities, and lead to an increase in the greenhouse effect.1
Naturally occurring GHGs, such as water vapor, are released into the atmos-
phere by processes such as ocean evaporation. Other naturally-occurring
GHGs, such as methane (CH4), are created by biological process in the guts of
termites and by biological decomposition. The production of these gases has
been balanced by natural processes that remove them from the atmosphere,
and the climate system has been in a relative balance for the past 10,000 years.
This balance has changed since the Industrial Revolution as human activities
have put more GHGs into the atmosphere than natural processes have been
able to absorb and remove.
The gases that are recognized by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) as principal contributors to human-induced global climate change are:
¤ carbon dioxide (CO2)
¤ methane (CH4)
¤ nitrous oxide (N2O)
¤ HFCs
1 The temperature on Earth is regulated by a system commonly known as
the “greenhouse effect.” Just as the glass in a greenhouse lets heat from sunlight in and
reduces the heat escaping, greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous
oxide in the atmosphere keep the Earth at a relatively even temperature. Without the
greenhouse effect, the Earth would be a frozen globe; thus, although an excess of
greenhouse gas results in global warming, the naturally occurring greenhouse effect is
necessary to keep our planet at a comfortable temperature.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.7-8
¤ PFCs
¤ sulfur hexaflouride (SF6)
Over the last 200 years humans have caused substantial quantities of GHGs to
be released into the atmosphere. These extra emissions are increasing GHG
concentrations in the atmosphere and enhancing the natural greenhouse ef-
fect. According to the US EPA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admini-
stration (NOAA), and other scientific organizations, this build-up is causing
global warming. While manmade GHGs include naturally-occurring com-
pounds such as CO2, CH4, and N2O, some gases, like HFCs, PFCs, and SF6
are completely new to the atmosphere.
Certain gases, such as water vapor, are short-lived in the atmosphere. Others
remain in the atmosphere for significant periods of time, contributing to cli-
mate change in the long term. Water vapor is excluded from the list of
GHGs above because it is short-lived in the atmosphere and its atmospheric
concentrations are largely determined by natural processes. For the purposes
of this EIR the term “greenhouse gases” will refer collectively to the gases
listed above only.
These gases vary considerably in terms of their Global Warming Potential
(GWP), a comparison of the ability of each GHG to trap heat in the atmos-
phere relative to a reference gas. The GWP is based on several factors, includ-
ing the relative effectiveness of a gas to absorb infrared radiation and length of
time that the gas remains in the atmosphere (“atmospheric lifetime”). By in-
ternational convention, the GWP of each gas is measured relative to CO2, the
most abundant GHG. The GWP for a particular GHG is the ratio of heat
trapped by one unit mass of the GHG to the ratio of heat trapped by one unit
mass of CO2 over a specified time period. GHG emissions are typically
measured in terms of pounds or tons of “CO2 equivalents” (CO2e). Table
4.7-2 shows the GWPs for each type of GHG.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.7-9
TABLE 4.7-2 GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIALS
Gas
Atmospheric
Lifetime
(Years)
Global Warming
Potential
(100-Year Time
Horizon)
Carbon Dioxide 50-200 1
Methane 12 25
Nitrous Oxide 114 298
HFC-23 270 14,800
HFC-134a 14 1,430
HFC-152a 1.4 124
PFC: Tetrafluoromethane (CF4) 50,000 7,390
PFC: Hexafluoromethane (C2F6) 10,000 12,200
Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) 3,200 22,800
Source: IPCC, 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working
Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC.
The following discussion summarizes the characteristics of the GHGs listed
above.
a. Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
In the atmosphere carbon generally exists in its oxidized form as CO2. Natu-
ral sources of CO2 include the respiration of animals and plants, volcanic out-
gassing, and decomposition of organic matter. Human-caused sources of CO2
include burning fossil fuels and wood, waste incineration, mineral produc-
tion, and deforestation. Natural removal processes, such as photosynthesis by
land- and ocean-dwelling plant species, cannot keep pace with this extra input
of man-made CO2. Consequently the gas is building up in the atmosphere by
about 3 parts per million (ppm) each year. Since the advent of the Industrial
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.7-10
Revolution (about 1750) ambient CO2 levels have increased from about 275
ppm to 388 ppm today; a change of about 30 percent.
b. Methane (CH4)
Methane is produced when organic matter decomposes in environments that
are low in oxygen. Natural sources include wetlands, termites, and oceans.
Garbage decomposing in landfills creates the majority of human-generated
CH4 emissions in the State and nationally. Agricultural processes at dairies
and rice cultivation are also significant sources of CH4 in California.
Total planetary annual CH4 emissions are approximately 500 million tons,
with man-made emissions accounting for the majority. As with CO2, the
major removal process of atmospheric CH4—a chemical breakdown in the
atmosphere—cannot keep pace with source emissions, and CH4 concentra-
tions in the atmosphere are increasing. The amount of atmospheric CH4 has
increased since the start of the industrial period from 0.7 ppm to 1.75 ppm
today.2
c. Nitrous Oxide (N2O)
Nitrous oxide is produced naturally by a wide variety of biological sources,
particularly microbial action in soils and water. Tropical soils and oceans
account for the majority of natural source emissions. Nitrous oxide is a
product of the reaction that occurs between nitrogen and oxygen during fuel
combustion. Both mobile and stationary combustion emit N2O, and the
quantity emitted varies according to the type of fuel, technology, and pollu-
tion control device used, as well as maintenance and operating practices.
Chemical fertilizers also degrade into N2O, and conventional agriculture is a
major source of N2O.
2 Schmidt, Gavin, 2004. Methane: A Scientific Journey from Obscurity to Cli-
mate Super-Stardom. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Goddard Insti-
tute for Space Studies. Website: www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/
200409_methane/. Accessed November 2010.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.7-11
d. Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), Perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and Sulfur Hex-
afluoride (SF6)
HFCs are primarily used as substitutes for ozone-depleting substances regu-
lated under the Montreal Protocol.3 PFCs and SF6 are emitted from various
industrial processes, including aluminum smelting, semiconductor manufac-
turing, electric power transmission and distribution, and magnesium casting.
There is no aluminum or magnesium production in California; however, the
rapid growth in the semiconductor industry leads to greater use of PFCs.
HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 accounted for about 3.5 percent of man-made GHG
emissions (CO2e) in California in 2002.
The latest projections, based on state-of-the art climate models, indicate that
temperatures in California are expected to rise 3 to 10.5°F by the end of the
century.4 Man-made GHGs persist for a long time in the atmosphere, accu-
mulate over time, and are generally well-mixed in the atmosphere. Thus, a
specific point of emission usually cannot be tied to a discrete global warming
impact.
Changes to the global climate system, ecosystems, and the environment of
California could include but are not limited to:
¤ Loss of sea ice and mountain snow pack, resulting in higher sea levels and
higher sea surface evaporation rates. There would be a corresponding in-
crease in water vapor due to the atmosphere’s ability to hold more water
vapor at higher temperatures;
¤ Rise in global average sea level from thermal expansion and melting in
the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. Melting ice also reduces solar re-
3 The Montreal Protocol is an international treaty that was approved on
January 1, 1989, and was designated to protect the ozone layer by phasing out the
production of several groups of halogenated hydrocarbons believed to be responsible
for ozone depletion.
4 California Climate Change Center, 2006. Our Changing Climate. Assessing
the Risks to California. July.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.7-12
flectance (albedo) and increases the ocean and terrestrial solar energy heat
absorption;
¤ Weather changes include different rain patterns, ocean salinity, and wind
patterns, and more energetic aspects of extreme weather, including
droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves, extreme cold, and stronger
tropical cyclones because of warmer ocean water;
¤ Decline of the Sierra snowpack, which accounts for approximately half
of the surface water storage in California, by 70 percent to 90 percent
over the next 100 years;
¤ Increase in the number of days conducive to ozone formation by 25 to 85
percent (depending on the future temperature scenario) in high ozone ar-
eas such as Los Angeles and the San Joaquin Valley;
¤ Sea levels are projected to rise up to 6 feet in the coming century,5 result-
ing in a high potential for erosion of California’s coastlines and seawater
intrusion into the Delta and levee systems.
¤ Increased levels of ocean acids, because CO2 dissolved in water is carbonic
acid. The ocean uptakes about 70 percent of all CO2 currently emitted
into the atmosphere. According to the EPA, “…marine snails, shrimp
and crabs will be adversely affected by ocean acidification. Other groups
of marine organisms will be impacted in ways that are not yet fully un-
derstood but could significantly impact ecosystem structure and produc-
tivity.”6 Ocean acidification is not a result of climate change but of CO2
emissions.
2. Emissions Inventories
An emissions inventory quantifies the primary human-generated sources and
sinks of GHGs. It accounts for the amount of GHGs emitted to or removed
5 California Climate Change Center, 2009. The Impacts of Sea Level Rise on
the California Coast, CEC-500-2009-024-f. May.
6 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2010. Climate Change – Science,
Future Ocean Acidification. Website: www.epa.gov/climatechange/ sci-
ence/futureoa.html. Accessed November 8, 2011.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.7-13
from the atmosphere over a specific period of time by source categories (e.g.
transportation). An inventory is a well-recognized and useful tool for ad-
dressing climate change. This section summarizes the latest information on
global, United States, California, and local GHG emission inventories.
a. Global Emissions
Worldwide emissions of GHGs in 2004 were 30 billion tons of CO2e per
year7 or about 4.3 tons/year/person (including both ongoing emissions from
industrial and agricultural sources, but excluding emissions from land-use
changes).
b. U.S. Emissions
In 2004, the United States emitted about 8 billion tons of CO2e or about 25
tons/year/person. Of the four major sectors nationwide – residential, com-
mercial, industrial and transportation – transportation accounts for the high-
est fraction of GHG emissions (approximately 35 to 40 percent); these emis-
sions are entirely generated from direct fossil fuel combustion. Between 1990
and 2006, total U.S. GHG emissions increased approximately 15 percent.7
c. State of California Emissions
According to ARB emission inventory estimates, California emitted approx-
imately 480 million metric tons8 of CO2e emissions in 2004.9 This large
7 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC),
2007. Sum of Annex I and Non-Annex I Countries Without Counting Land-Use, Land-
Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF). Predefined Queries: GHG total without LULUCF
(Annex I Parties). Bonn, Germany. Website: unfccc.int/ghg_emissions_data/
predefined_queries/items/3814.php. Accessed May 2.
7 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2008. The U.S. Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Sinks: Fast Facts. Website: www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/
downloads/2008_GHG_Fast_Facts.pdf.
8 A metric ton is 1000 kilograms, equivalent to approximately 1.1 tons.
9 California Air Resources Board, 2008. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data -
1990 to 2004. Website: www.arb.ca.gov/ cc/inventory/data/data.htm. Accessed No-
vember 8, 2011.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.7-14
number is due primarily to the sheer size of California compared to other
states. By contrast, California has the fourth lowest per-capita carbon dioxide
emission rate from fossil fuel combustion in the country, due to the success of
its energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. State commitments
have lowered the GHG emissions growth rate by more than half of what it
would have been otherwise.10 ARB staff has projected 2020 unregulated
GHG emissions, or the emissions that would be expected without any GHG
reduction actions, at 596 million metric tons (MMT) of CO2e.
d. Northern Sierra Air Basin Emissions
At the time this Draft EIR was prepared, the NSAQMD had not prepared a
GHG emission inventory.
e. Town of Truckee Emissions
At the time this Draft EIR was prepared, Truckee had not prepared a GHG
emission inventory.
C. Standards of Significance
The proposed project would have a significant impact with regard to GHG
emissions if it would:
¤ Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment.
¤ Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.
As discussed above, neither the Town of Truckee nor the NSAQMD has yet
established significance thresholds for GHG emissions from project opera-
10 California Energy Commission, 2007. Inventory of California Green-
house Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 to 2004 - Final Staff Report, publication # CEC-
600-2006-013-SF, Sacramento, CA, December 22, 2006; and January 23, 2007 update to
that report.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.7-15
tions. At the State level, in January 2009 the ARB published though never
adopted its recommended interim GHG threshold. The ARB’s document
“Recommended Approaches for Setting Interim Significance Thresholds for
Greenhouse Gases under CEQA” recommends if a proposed residential pro-
ject were to emit more than 1,600 metric tons of CO2e per year, such a project
would be required to achieve a series of performance standards in order to be
considered less than significant. These performance standards are intended to
address the generation of GHG emissions from construction, energy use,
waste generation, water conveyance, and vehicle emissions.
Other air districts within the State have developed GHG significance criteria.
For example, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
recently adopted a numeric threshold of 1,100 metric tons of CO2d per year as
its GHG threshold. However, the Sacramento Metropolitan Air District
(SMAD) took a different approach and suggests several methods for determin-
ing significance primarily based on the project’s consistency with the State’s
strategy for implementing AB 32.
For the purposes of evaluating the project project’s GHG impacts, emissions
resulting from implementation of the proposed project will be quantified and
the quantified emissions will then be compared with the ARB’s recommended
interim GHG threshold for residential projects.
D. Impact Discussion
1. Project Impacts
a. Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment.
i. Construction Emissions.
Construction would produce combustion emissions from various sources.
During construction of the project, GHGs would be emitted through the
operation of construction equipment and from worker and builder supply
vendor vehicles, each of which typically use fossil-based fuels to operate. The
combustion of fossil-based fuels creates GHGs such as CO2, CH4, and N2O.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.7-16
Furthermore, CH4 is emitted during the fueling of heavy equipment. Ex-
haust emissions from on-site construction activities would vary daily as con-
struction activity levels change.
The project would be constructed in eight phases over 20 or more years. CO2
is the primary GHG emitted during construction and based on the availabil-
ity of model output from URBEMIS, is the only GHG presented in the con-
struction emissions results table. Emissions for project construction were
estimated and are presented in Table 4.7-3.
TABLE 4.7-3 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION GREENHOUSE
GAS EMISSIONS IN METRIC TONS PER YEAR
CO2
Metric Tons
Phase 1 288.8
Phase 2 247.8
Phase 3 263.0
Phase 4 386.6
Phase 5 247.0
Phase 6 284.3
Phase 7 255.2
Phase 8 256.8
Source: LSA Associates, Inc., 2011.
As discussed in Section 4.3, Air Quality, of this Draft EIR, implementation of
construction emission control measures outlined in Mitigation Measure
AIR-2 would reduce GHG emissions during the construction period which
would reduce construction GHG emissions.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.7-17
These measures specifically are:
¤ Grid power should be used (as opposed to diesel generators) for job site
power needs where feasible during construction; and
¤ All self-propelled off-road diesel-powered equipment and vehicles greater
than 25 horsepower should be equipped with an engine meeting at least
Tier 2 emission standards.
ii. Operations-Related Emissions
Long-term operation of the proposed project would generate direct GHG
emissions from area and mobile sources, and indirect emissions from sources
associated with energy consumption, water use, and solid waste disposal.
Mobile-source GHG emissions would include project-generated vehicle trips
associated with residential trips. Area-source emissions would be associated
with activities such as landscaping and maintenance of the proposed homes
and property land use. Overall, the use of native landscaping materials would
help to minimize the level of landscaping and maintenance activities at the
project site. In general, increases in emissions would also occur at off-site util-
ity providers as a result of demand for electricity by the proposed project.
The URBEMIS 2007 and the recently released BAAQMD GHG model called
BGM were used to determine the project’s GHG emissions. The
BAAQMD’s model is also applicable for projects located outside the
BAAQMD because it uses statewide emission factors for its analysis sources.
As noted earlier, the NSAQMD does not have a recommended model or reg-
ulations for calculating project-related GHG emissions; therefore, for purpos-
es of this analysis the BGM model has been used. The BGM model output is
included in Appendix H, of this Draft EIR. Results of the BGM model indi-
cate that the total project operational emissions for all homes associated with
the project would be approximately 3,025 metric tons of CO2eq per year in-
cluding emissions from transportation, electricity and natural gas usage, water
and wastewater usage, and solid waste disposal. Each component of these
total emissions is discussed below.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.7-18
iii. Transportation.
Transportation associated with the project would result in emissions from the
combustion of fossil fuels in daily automobile and truck trips. Transporta-
tion is the largest source of GHG emissions in California and represents ap-
proximately 38 percent of annual CO2 emissions generated in the State. For
land use development projects, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and vehicle trips
are the most direct indicators of GHG emissions associated with the project.
The transportation emissions analysis assumes that full-time Truckee resi-
dents would occupy the project homes resulting in the emission of 1,913.42
metric tons of CO2eq per year.
iv. Electricity and Natural Gas.
Buildings represent 39 percent of United States primary energy use and 70
percent of electricity consumption.11 Electricity use can result in GHG pro-
duction if the electricity is generated by combusting fossil fuel. The project is
anticipated to increase the use of electricity and natural gas. Energy con-
sumption was estimated using the BGM resulting in a total of 988.79 metric
tons of CO2eq per year.
v. Water and Wastewater.
Energy use and related GHG emissions are based on water supply and con-
veyance, water treatment, water distribution, and wastewater treatment.
Each element of the water use cycle has unique energy intensities (kilowatt
hours [kWh]/million gallons). Recognizing that the actual energy intensity
in each component of the water use cycle will vary by utility, the California
Energy Commission (CEC) assumes that approximately 5,411 kWh per mil-
lion gallons are consumed for water that is supplied, treated, consumed, treat-
ed again, and disposed of in Northern California. The CEC usage rates for
the proposed project provide a conservative analysis of the expected water use
emissions as actual water usage for a Truckee resident would be expected to
be much less than for a resident in other parts of Northern California as the
snow cover for a portion of year reduces the need for landscape watering.
11 United States Department of Energy, 2003. Buildings Energy Data Book.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.7-19
Using standard California rates, project water usage, and wastewater is ex-
pected to generate 34.97 metric tons per year CO2eq. Water factors used in
the analysis can be found in Appendix H of this Draft EIR.
vi. Solid Waste Disposal.
Solid waste generated by the project could contribute to GHG emissions in a
variety of ways. Landfilling and other methods of disposal use energy for
transporting and managing the waste and they produce additional GHGs to
varying degrees. Landfilling, the most common waste management practice,
results in the release of CH4 from the anaerobic decomposition of organic
materials. CH4 is 25 times more potent a GHG than CO2. However, landfill
CH4 can also be a source of energy. In addition, many materials in landfills
do not decompose fully, and the carbon that remains is sequestered in the
landfill and not released into the atmosphere. Assumptions used in the solid
waste disposal analysis can be found in Appendix H of this Draft EIR. Solid
waste disposal was estimated using the BGM resulting in 266 metric tons
CO2eq per year.
As shown Table 4.7-4, total project GHG emissions would be approximately
3,025 metric tons of CO2eq per year of which about 60 percent would be gen-
erated by vehicle trips associated with the project.
To reduce emissions from energy and water use, the proposed project would
be required to comply with all the Residential Mandatory Measures of
CalGreen 2010, the latest California building code. These measures include
overall minimum energy efficiency, water efficiency, and water conservation
requirements, assisting to reduce the project’s operational GHG emissions.
In addition, the project Draft Architectural and Site Design Guidelines (Draft
Design Guidelines), outlined below, include recommendations which, if im-
plemented would further reduce the project’s total annual GHG emissions
from the estimate shown in Table 4.7-4.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.7-20
TABLE 4.7-4 PROJECT RELATED GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Emission Source
Emissions (Metric Tons Per Year)
CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq
Percent
of Total
Transportation 1,913.42 59.69
Area Sources 1.97 0.00 0.00 2.46 0.08
Electricity 500.75 0.00 0.00 501.55 15.65
Natural Gas 485.99 0.05 0.00 487.24 15.20
Waste and Wastewater 34.91 0.00 0.00 34.97 1.09
Solid Waste 1.85 12.58 NA 266.11 8.30
Total Annual Emissions 3,025.75 100
Source: LSA Associates, Inc., August 2011.
As described in Chapter 3 of this Draft EIR, the Draft Design Guidelines
have been developed for the project to achieve project goals and are included
in Appendix C of this Draft EIR. The Draft Design Guidelines were pre-
pared by the applicant with the intent of establishing a consistent design
theme and break-up the massing of homes throughout the project site. The
Draft Design Guidelines identify that individual house design would consider
the natural topography, sunlight exposure, and existing vegetation. The
Draft Design Guidelines include design features that would contribute a re-
duction in the project’s GHG. These features include the following:
¤ Utilize shading from tree canopies to incorporate natural cooling.
¤ Utilize southern exposure and south facing windows for passive heating.
¤ Landscaping should include native, naturalized, and adapted water con-
serving plants.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.7-21
¤ Harvest rainwater to reuse water from the roof, or collected from onsite
storm drain inlets.
¤ Utilize reclaimed wood and other recyclable building materials when
possible;
¤ Install skylights and solar panels into the design of the residences.
¤ Utilize pre-plumbing for solar water heating. Insulated copper pipes may
be pre-installed from the attic to a hot water closet or mechanical room
for future solar installation. This option allows the homeowner to install
an active solar system at a later date. Provide south facing roof area for
collectors and facing access for piping to a mechanical room.
¤ Install radiant heating systems. Radiant heating is up to 30 percent more
efficient than forced air heating systems. Radiant heating may be in-
stalled in zones that allow residents to adjust the temperature in various
areas of the house based on usage and desired comfort level.
¤ Install Energy Star Certified Appliances. These appliances are significant-
ly more efficient in their use of water and electricity. At a minimum, the
following appliances are recommended to be Energy Star rated: dish-
washers, refrigerator and clothes washers. Energy Star also certifies heat-
ing and cooling equipment such as air conditioners, furnaces, boilers,
heat-pumps and thermostats.
¤ Install Energy Star labeled windows.
Furthermore, the project would include on-site low-impact recreational op-
portunities for future residents and the public through the implementation of
the publicly accessible 4.5-mile trail system. The project’s trail system is con-
sistent with the Town’s Trails and Bikeways Master Plan, which illustrates a
proposed corridor for a recreational trail (surface to be determined) generally
crossing the project site in an east and west direction.12 Therefore, this pro-
ject design feature would reduce vehicular trips associated with travel for such
12 Town of Truckee Trails and Bikeway Master Plan Appendix D, Exhibit 1,
Existing and Proposed Trail and Bikeway Network, Section 42, as of May 17, 2007.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.7-22
activities. While it can be assumed that project design features described in
Chapter 3 of this Draft EIR would be incorporated, at this stage in the plan-
ning and development process, it cannot be determined which exact features
would be incorporated into the final project design, nor can the exact reduc-
tion in GHG emissions be calculated for incorporation of each measure.
Construction of the project would be built using the latest building standards
for energy efficiency outlined in Title 24, which currently is the CalGreen
program. The CalGreen program reduces GHG emissions by implementing
energy efficiency in residences of over 10 percent from the previous Title 24.
Implementation of the project design feature outlined in Chapter 3 of this
Draft EIR and described in the Draft Design Guidelines would reduce the
project’s impact related to GHG emissions.
Based on the emission results shown in Table 4.7-4, the proposed project
would exceed the 1,600 metric tons of CO2e. However, this threshold has not
been adopted by the ARB and it should be noted that neither the NSAQMD,
nor the Town of Truckee has established a numeric threshold for project
GHG emissions. The proposed project is located in an area that has been
previously zoned for residential uses and is consistent with the General Plan
and Zoning designations for the project site. Implementation of the energy
saving home features and water efficient landscaping would help to reduce
GHG emissions by reducing the overall electrical demands for lighting, heat-
ing, and cooling, as well as reduce water consumption and the associated en-
ergy use and therefore would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that would have a significant impact on the environment. There-
fore, with implementation of project design features outlined in this Draft
EIR, GHG emissions impacts as a result of the proposed project would be less
than significant.
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.
i. Assembly Bill 32 Early Action Measures.
The early action items adopted by ARB in October 2007 focus on industrial
production processes, agriculture, and transportation sectors. Early action
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.7-23
items associated with industrial production and agriculture do not apply to
the proposed project. The transportation sector early action items such as
truck efficiency, low carbon fuel standard, proper tire inflation, truck stop
electrification, and strengthening light duty vehicle standards are either not
specifically applicable to the proposed project or would result in a reduction
of GHG emissions associated with the project. The project thus would not
conflict with the early action measures.
ii. Assembly Bill 32 Scoping Plan.
Most of the AB 32 Scoping Plan measures are only recommendations at this
time and have not yet been adopted by the ARB. Those few measures that
have already been adopted (for example, the Stationary Equipment Refriger-
ant Management Program that is in effect as of January 2011) are either not
specifically applicable to the proposed project or would result in a reduction
of GHG emissions associated with the project.
iii. Senate Bill 375.
Although the GHG emissions reduction targets have been adopted by ARB,
no Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) has yet been prepared for the
region pursuant to Senate Bill 375 (SB 375). SB 375 requires federally desig-
nated metropolitan planning organizations (MPO) to prepare SCS. Through
an SCS, each MPO demonstrates how its plans and policies meet the GHG
reduction targets set by the ARB. However, the Town is part of Nevada
County, which does not have a federally designated MPO. Therefore, the
provisions of SB 375 do not directly apply and the project would not conflict
with SB 375 implementation.
iv. Town Policies.
The project would be in conformance with the Town of Truckee 2025 General
Plan policies related to energy conservation and solid waste reduction as out-
lined in Table 4.7-1, which would reduce the project’s GHG emissions.
The proposed project is a residential development project. Overall, the pro-
ject would not conflict with the reduction strategies identified in AB 32, the
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.7-24
Governor’s EO S-3-05, and other strategies to help reduce GHG emissions to
the level proposed by the governor. Therefore, the proposed project would
not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation for the purpose of
reducing GHG emissions. Therefore, the proposed project would not con-
flict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation for the purpose of reduc-
ing GHG emissions resulting in a less-than-significant impact.
2. Cumulative Impacts
It is the increased concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere resulting in
global climate change and the associated consequences of climate change that
results in adverse environmental effects (e.g. sea level rise, loss of snowpack,
severe weather events). A project’s incremental contribution to GHGs in the
atmosphere is a contribution to the cumulative effect that is global climate
change. However, as discussed above, GHG emissions emitted individually at
the project level would not result in an adverse climate change impact.
Therefore, the individual GHG emissions identified in Table 4.7-4 would re-
sult in a less than significant cumulative impact.
E. Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Project and cumulative impacts related to GHG emissions would be less than
significant and no mitigation measures are warranted.
4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.8-1
This section addresses the subject of hazards and hazardous materials with
respect to the buildout of the proposed project. The project, a residential
development, would not include the routine transport of hazardous materials
and the project site is not on a list of hazardous materials sites pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 (this is discussed further below).1 The site
is not located at the base of a major slope and would not be subject to ava-
lanche hazards. Seismic hazards and flooding hazards are discussed in Section
4.6, Geology, Soils, and Seismicity, and Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water
Quality, respectively. Therefore, this section includes an assessment of po-
tential impacts associated with the development of the project with respect to
the wildfire and high voltage transmission line hazards in the project area.
The information and analysis in this section is primarily based on the follow-
ing documents, which is included in Appendix J, Geotechnical and Hazards
Data, of this Draft EIR:
¤ Geologic, Geohazards, and Environmental Hazards Evaluation Report Up-
date prepared by Geocon Consultants, Inc., June 2006.
The abovementioned report is based on a review of the following reports
previously prepared for the project site:
¤ Geologic, Geohazards, and Environmental Evaluation, prepared by Geocon
Consultants, Inc., June 2005.
¤ Geotechnical Engineering Report for Tahoe Boca, Truckee, California, pre-
pared by Holdredge & Kull, 2003.
The Getotechnical and Hazards Report includes a third Party Peer Review of
the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment, herein referenced as Phase 1 Re-
port, prepared by Moss Group, May 2000, which was based on the following:
¤ Reconnaissance-level physical inspection of the project site.
1 California Department of Toxic Substance Control, Envirostor, Hazardous
Waste and Substance List, September 9, 2011.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.8-2
¤ Review of historical photography and other information regarding prior
land use.
¤ Evaluation of local hydrogeology.
¤ Environmental Data Resources (EDR) Radius Map Report dated June 28,
2004.
¤ Review of local, State, and federal regulatory agency records.
A. Regulatory Framework
This section summarizes existing local, State, and federal laws, policies, and
regulations that apply to the hazards and hazardous materials relevant to the
project site (i.e. wildfire and high voltage transmission line hazards).
1. Federal Laws and Regulations
There are no Federal regulations regarding the relevant hazards associated
with the project site that are applicable to the proposed project.
2. State Laws and Regulations
In California, regional agencies are responsible for programs regulating emis-
sions to the air, surface water, and groundwater. At the Project site, the
Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District (NSAQMD) has oversight
over air emissions, and the Lahontan Regional Quality Control Board
(LRWQCB) has jurisdiction over Truckee and surrounding counties, and
regulates discharges and releases to surface and groundwater. Air Quality and
Water Quality impacts are discussed in Section 4.3, Air Quality, and Section
4.9 of this Draft EIR, respectively,
a. Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regula-
tory Program (Unified Program)
In January 1996, the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA
adopted regulations implementing the Unified Program. The program has six
elements: (1) hazardous waste generators and hazardous waste on-site treat-
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.8-3
ment, (2) underground storage tanks, (3) aboveground storage tanks, (4) haz-
ardous materials release response plans and inventories, (5) risk management
and prevention programs, and (6) Uniform Fire Code hazardous materials
management plans and inventories. The plan is implemented at the local lev-
el. The local agency that is responsible for the implementation of the Unified
Program is called the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA), and the
Nevada County Department of Environmental Health is designated the
CUPA.
b. California Emergency Services Act
Pursuant to the California Emergency Services Act, the State has developed
an Emergency Response Plan to coordinate emergency services provided by
federal, state, and local governmental agencies and private persons. Response
to hazardous materials incidents is one part of this plan. The plan is adminis-
tered by the State Office of Emergency Services (OES). The OES coordinates
the responses of other agencies, including Cal EPA, California Highway Pa-
trol (CHP), California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), Regional Wa-
ter Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs), the local air pollution control dis-
tricts, and local agencies.
3. Local Regulations and Policies
a. Nevada County Fire Plan
The Nevada County Fire Plan (NCFP) was prepared to reduce the risk from
wildland fires to life, property, and natural resources in Nevada County and
comply with the Disaster Management Act of 2000 and the Healthy Forest
Restoration Act of 2003.2 This NCFP was accepted by the Nevada County
Board of Supervisors in 2005. The NCFP includes an extensive series of rec-
ommendations for the Nevada County Board of Supervisors aimed at reduc-
ing wildland fire risk in Nevada County, including fuel management and de-
fensible space enforcement strategies, public education, infrastructure im-
2 The Nevada County Fire Plan: A framework for reducing threats to public
safety and reducing costs and losses as a result of wildfire in Nevada County by the
Fire Plan Committee (FPC) for the Nevada County Board of Supervisors, August
2004.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.8-4
provements to increase fire-fighting capacity, and coordination with local fire
agencies to ensure consistent and effective wildland fire mitigation efforts.
b. Town of Truckee Emergency Operations Plan
The Town of Truckee Emergency Operations Plan (TEOP) was prepared in
February 2008 and serves as an extension of the California Emergency Plan.
The TEOP addresses the Town’s responsibilities in emergencies associated
with natural disasters, including wildfires. It provides a framework for coor-
dination of response and recovery efforts within the Town in coordination
and with local, State, and federal agencies. The TEOP establishes the emer-
gency organization, assigns tasks, specifies policies, and general procedures,
and provides for coordination of planning efforts of the various emergency
staff and service elements utilizing the Standardized Emergency Management
System (SEMS). The plan also meets requirements established by the Nation-
al Incident Management System (NIMS).
c. Town of Truckee Standard Condition for Fire Protection Services
The Town established the Town of Truckee Standard Condition for Fire
Protection Services on April 20, 2009 to identify the applicability of Truckee
Fire Protection District requirements on Town-approved projects and the
public official responsible for verifying compliance with the condition.3 The
Standard Condition for Fire Protection Services policy states that the review
authority must make a finding of such before the review authority may ap-
prove a zoning clearance, development permit, or use permit to ensure ade-
quate provisions for emergency vehicle access and fire protection. The find-
ing focuses on the installation of physical infrastructure, facilities, and im-
provements on or adjacent to the property and the payment of development
fees for the construction of facilities and purchase of equipment to address
cumulative impacts on fire services. Because the land use permit is approved
by the Town, a Town official should be responsible for verifying compliance
with this finding in coordination with the Truckee Fire Protection District
Fire Marshal.
3 Town of Truckee Community Development Department, Policies, Proce-
dures, and Determinations, Director’s Determination #43.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.8-5
The following condition of approval shall be applied to the approval of all
zoning clearances, development permits, and use permits:
“As determined by the Community Development Director in coordina-
tion with the District Fire Marshal, the project shall comply with all ap-
plicable Truckee Fire Protection District ordinances and requirements re-
lated to the construction or installation of physical infrastructure, facili-
ties, and improvements and the payment of mitigation fees for the con-
struction of facilities and the purchase of equipment. These ordinances
and requirements may include, but not be limited to, installation of fire
hydrants, minimum fire flow, automatic sprinkler systems for buildings,
driveway and turnaround specifications, and fuel clearance. The physical
infrastructure, facilities, and improvements shall be installed at the time
of development and completed prior to occupancy of buildings and the
land, and the mitigation fees shall be paid in accordance with adopted
Council rules for administration of the mitigation fee program.”
d. Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan
The Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan contains goals and policies related to
hazards and hazardous materials in the Town. Relevant goals and policies are
contained in Table 4.8-1.
B. Existing Conditions
The site is located in the central portion of the Sierra Nevada Mountain
Range. The Glenshire area, including the site, is underlain by the Hirschdale
Formation, comprising intermixed volcanic flows and brecciated zones. Lo-
cally overlying the Hirschdale Formation is a thin veneer of Juniper Flat Al-
luvium. Underlying the Hirschdale Formation is the Truckee Formation,
which is locally characterized by Pleistocene-age non-marine sedimentary
rocks comprising unconsolidated and semi-consolidated stream and lake de-
posits of silt, sand, gravel, and clay. Tertiary volcanic rocks are thought to
underlie the Truckee Formation.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.8-6
TABLE 4.8-1 TRUCKEE GENERAL PLAN POLICIES PERTAINING TO HAZARDS
AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Policy or
Goal No. Goals and Policies
Goal LU-4 Coordinate land development with provision of services and infra-
structure.
LU-P4.1
Work with all special districts, including the Tahoe-Truckee Uni-
fied School District, to ensure that development within the Town
is coordinated with provision of services.
LU-P4.1
Work with all special districts, including the Tahoe-Truckee Uni-
fied School District, to ensure that development within the Town
is coordinated with provision of services.
LU-P4.2
Cooperate with special districts to plan for and identify suitable
future sites for needed facilities, including schools, fire stations,
solid and liquid waste disposal sites, and utilities infrastructure, so
that the local population can be safely and efficiently served, while
minimizing potential environmental impacts.
LU-P4.3
Approve rezoning and development permits only when adequate
services are available, or when a program to provide services has
been approved by the applicable District and the Town of Truck-
ee. Standards of services for new development applicable to this
policy are shown in Table LU-6.
Require that sewer be provided for all new residential subdivisions
creating more than four lots, and all new commercial and indus-
trial uses. Existing legal lots and new subdivisions of four or fewer
lots in areas currently without sewer may be developed with resi-
dential uses using septic systems with the approval of the appro-
priate health and environmental agencies.
Such lots may be required to establish connections to the sewer
system if they are located in close proximity to existing or future
sewer lines.
Goal SAF-4
Protect lives and property from risks associated with wildland and
urban fire.
SAF-P4.2
Continue to cooperate with the Fire Protection District to im-
plement fire safety ordinances to minimize wildland fire hazards,
including incorporation of fire resistant building and roofing ma-
terials, and attainment and maintenance of “defensible space.”
Defensible space may include revegetation with less flammable
species, such as fire resistant native and adapted species, and the
use of mulch to prevent erosion on bare soil.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
TABLE 4.8-1 TRUCKEE GENERAL PLAN POLICIES PERTAINING TO HAZARDS
AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS (CONTINUED)
4.8-7
Policy or
Goal No. Goals and Policies
SAF-P4.3
Promote fire hazard reduction through cooperative fuel manage-
ment activities in association with the Truckee Fire Protection
District, the California Department of Forestry and the U.S. For-
est Service. Such strategies may include identifying and imple-
menting opportunities for fuel breaks in very high fire hazard
severity zones, and ensuring that fire breaks are provided where
necessary and appropriate.
SAF-P4.4 Require new development to incorporate adequate emergency
water flow, emergency vehicle access and evacuation routes.
SAF-P4.5
Continue to support the mitigation fee program for the Fire Pro-
tection District, to ensure that the District is able to meet the fu-
ture fire protection needs of the community as it grows.
SAF-P4.6
Support, as appropriate, efforts to implement the recommenda-
tions of the 2005 Nevada County Fire Plan, and programs of Fire
Safe Nevada County.
SAF-P4.7
Ensure that the development review process addresses wildland
fire risk, including assessment of both construction- and project
related fire risks particularly in areas of the Town most susceptible
to fire hazards. Cooperate with the TFPD in reviewing fire safety
plans and provisions in new development, including aspects such
as emergency access, site design for maintenance of defensible
space, and use of non-combustible materials.
Source: Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan.
1. Hazardous Materials
A substance may be considered hazardous due to a number of criteria, includ-
ing toxicity, ignitibility, corrodibility, or reactivity. The term “hazardous
material” is defined by its definition in law as any material that, because of
quantity, concentration, physical or chemical characteristics, poses a signifi-
cant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the envi-
ronment.
Once a hazardous material becomes ready for discard, it becomes a hazardous
waste. A hazardous waste, for the purpose of this Draft EIR, is any hazard-
ous material that is abandoned, discarded, or (planned to be) recycled. In ad-
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.8-8
dition, hazardous wastes may occasionally be generated by actions that
change the composition of previously non-hazardous materials. The same
criteria: toxicity, ignitability, corrodibility, or reactivity that renders a mate-
rial hazardous makes waste hazardous.
The Liberty Energy – California Pacific Electric Company’s overhead high-
power transmission line spans the project site in a southwest-northeast orien-
tation for approximately 2,300 feet. The associated electrical substation is
located approximately 100 feet west of the western boundary of the site. Sev-
eral transformers and other electrical equipment were observed at this substa-
tion. Liberty Energy – California Pacific Electric Company is the owner of
this electrical equipment, and assumes all responsibility and liability for any
and all cleanups resulting from potential polychlorinated bi-phenyl (PCB)
spills associated with their equipment. The substation has a transformer that
contains 16 parts per million (ppm) PCBs and two regulators that contain 26
ppm PCBs. In addition, a well exists near the central portion of the project
site on Assessor Parcel Number 49-020-20.
The Environmental Data Resources (EDR) Radius Map Report dated June 28,
2004 identified five sites with documented environmental conditions within
2 miles of the site. Information regarding the identified sites is contained in
the EDR Radius Map Report in Appendix E (Moss Group, 2000). The sites
and the conditions that apply to them are as follows:
(1) Truckee Quarry – subject to waste discharge requirements
(2) Bryant Property – leaking underground storage tank (LUST) site, Cor-
tese list.
(3) Glenshire/Devonshire Residents Association - LUST site, Cortese list,
California Facilities Inventories Database (CA FID) underground stor-
age tank site (UST) site
(A4) Glenshire Mutual Water Company – Historical UST site
(6) United Trails – CA FID UST site
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.8-9
2. Wildfire Hazards
The Town of Truckee lies within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, as
defined by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal
Fire), indicating that wildland fires are considered to pose a significant hazard.
The Martis Valley fire of 2001 burned approximately 15,000 square miles
(39,000 km2) of land, which included a portion of the project site.
As discussed in the Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan, wildfire risks are par-
ticularly pronounced where homes are located within areas of dense vegeta-
tion and forest land, and where steep slopes and other similar conditions exist.
Calculation of threat from wildfire hazard is based on a number of combining
factors including fuel loading (vegetation), topography, and climatic condi-
tions such as winds, humidity, and temperature. Figure 4.8-1 shows areas
with the Town with potential risk from wildland fire, based on the proximity
of population density to those areas most likely to be at risk due to prevailing
physical and climatic conditions.4 As illustrated on Figure 4.8-1, the level of
fire danger risk within the project site is considered to be very high.
C. Standards of Significance
The proposed project would have a significant impact with regard to hazards
and hazardous materials if it would:
¤ Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
¤ Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through rea-
sonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment.
4 Town of Truckee General Plan 2025, Figure SAF-4, Community Areas at
Risk from Wildland Fire, page 9-9.
D o r c h este
r
Wa y
Martis
Creek
Lake
Glensh
i
r
e
D
r
AlderCreekRd
JoergerDr
Pros
serD
a
m
R
d
Bro
c
k
w
a
y
R
d
Al
d
e
r
D
r
SkiSlopeWay
Hi
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
R
d
SilverfirDr
ThelineDr
P
a
l
i
s
a
d
e
s
D
r
N
o
r
t
h
w
o
o
d
sBlvd
DonnerPassRd
DonnerPassRd
Gl e n s h i r e D
r
i
v
e
267
89
89
Tr
uckee
Ri
v
e
r
T r u c k e e R i v e r
Truckee-Tahoe
Airport
DonnerLake
P r o s s e r L a k e
TruckeeTownLimits
ProposedSphereofInfluence
BocaRes.
Notes:CDFwildland/urbaninterfacethreatmappingreflectsrelativerisktoareasofpopulationdensityfrom
wildfire.Riskisexpressedintermsofa"ThreattoCommunity"value,withpotentialvaluesranging
from-14(LittleornoThreattocommunityareaswithaveragedensityof1housingunitper20acresorless)
to+44(ExtremeThreattocommunityareaswithaveragedensityof1unitperacreormore.
ThreatvaluesintheTruckeearearangefrom14to34,whichareallbetweentheModerateandVery
Highlevel,withmostplacesclassifiedasHighorVeryHighthreat.
Moderate VeryHighHigh
CommunityThreatfromWildlandFire
§¨¦80
012Mile
§¨¦80
§¨¦80
NORTH
Project Site
267
D o r c h ester
Way
Martis
Creek
Lake
Glensh
i
r
e
D
r
AlderCreekRd
JoergerDr
Pros
serD
a
m
R
d
Broc
k
w
a
y
R
d
Ald
e
r
D
r
SkiSlopeWay
Hi
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
R
d
SilverfirDr
ThelineDr
P
a
l
i
s
a
d
e
s
D
r
N
o
r
t
h
w
o
od
s Blvd
DonnerPassRd
DonnerPassRd
Glensh i r e D
r
i
v
e
267
89
89
Tr
uckee
Ri
v
e
r
T r u c k e e R iv e r
Truckee-Tahoe
Airport
D o n n e r L a k e
P r o s s e r L a k e
TruckeeTownLimits
ProposedSphereofInfluence
B
o
c
a
R
e
s.
Notes:CDFwildland/urbaninterfacethreatmappingreflectsrelativerisktoareasofpopulationdensityfrom
wildfire.Riskisexpressedintermsofa"ThreattoCommunity"value,withpotentialvaluesranging
from-14(LittleornoThreattocommunityareaswithaveragedensityof1housingunitper20acresorless)
to+44(ExtremeThreattocommunityareaswithaveragedensityof1unitperacreormore.
ThreatvaluesintheTruckeearearangefrom14to34,whichareallbetweentheModerateandVery
Highlevel,withmostplacesclassifiedasHighorVeryHighthreat.
Moderate VeryHighHigh
CommunityThreatfromWildlandFire
§¨¦80
012Mile
§¨¦80
§¨¦80
NORTH
Project Site
267
D o r c h ester
Wa y
Martis
Creek
Lake
Glensh
i
r
e
D
r
AlderCreekRd
JoergerDr
Pros
serD
a
m
R
d
Broc
k
w
a
y
R
d
Al
d
e
r
D
r
SkiSlopeWay
Hi
r
s
c
h
d
a
l
e
R
d
SilverfirDr
ThelineDr
P
a
l
i
s
a
d
e
s
D
r
N
o
r
t
h
w
o
o
d
s Blvd
DonnerPassRd
DonnerPassRd
Glen s h i r e D
r
i
v
e
267
89
89
Tr
uckee
Ri
v
e
r
T r u c k e e R iv e r
Truckee-Tahoe
Airport
D o n n e r L a k e
P r o s s e r L a k e
TruckeeTownLimits
ProposedSphereofInfluence
BocaRes.
Notes:CDFwildland/urbaninterfacethreatmappingreflectsrelativerisktoareasofpopulationdensityfrom
wildfire.Riskisexpressedintermsofa"ThreattoCommunity"value,withpotentialvaluesranging
from-14(LittleornoThreattocommunityareaswithaveragedensityof1housingunitper20acresorless)
to+44(ExtremeThreattocommunityareaswithaveragedensityof1unitperacreormore.
ThreatvaluesintheTruckeearearangefrom14to34,whichareallbetweentheModerateandVery
Highlevel,withmostplacesclassifiedasHighorVeryHighthreat.
Moderate VeryHighHigh
CommunityThreatfromWildlandFire
§¨¦80
012Mile
§¨¦80
§¨¦80
NORTH
Project Site
267
WILDLAND FIRE HAZARDS MAP
FIGURE 4.8-1
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Source: California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, 2003.
10 2 MilesNORTH
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.8-11
¤ Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous ma-
terials, substances, or waste within ¼-mile of an existing or proposed
school.
¤ Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in
the project area.
¤ For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project ar-
ea.
¤ Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emer-
gency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
¤ Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death
involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urban-
ized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands.
D. Impact Discussion
1. Project Impacts
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
The proposed project, a residential development, would not include the rou-
tine transport or disposing of hazardous materials. Construction of the pro-
posed project would involve the use and handling of small amounts of haz-
ardous materials (e.g. diesel gasoline, fertilizers, etc.). Construction activities
at the project site would involve the use of petroleum-based fuels for mainte-
nance and construction equipment, which would be transported to the site
periodically by vehicle and would be present temporarily during construc-
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.8-12
tion. Through mandatory compliance with all related federal, State, and local
regulations with respect to transportation, handling, and use of any construc-
tion fuels or other hazardous materials, impacts resulting from the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant
and no mitigation measures are warranted.
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release
of hazardous materials into the environment.
The proposed project involves a residential subdivision on undeveloped land.
The potential for pesticides, herbicides, or fertilizers accumulation at the pro-
ject site is negligible. Landscaping chemicals and fuels are expected to be on
the site, for routine use by residents and maintenance personnel. The use and
storage of these chemicals is common in the area, and is not expected to pro-
duce significant environmental hazards to users of the site.
The Liberty Energy – California Pacific Electric Company’s overhead high-
power (60 kilovolt) transmission line spans the project site in a southwest-
northeast orientation for approximately 2,300 feet. The associated electrical
substation is located approximately 100 feet west of the western boundary of
the site. Several transformers and other electrical equipment at this location
are known to contain PCBs. The Liberty Energy – California Pacific Electric
Company owns and operates the transmission lines, and is the responsible
party in the event that there is a PCB spill or related accident that may cause
PCBs to leak from the transformers. As with existing conditions, the Truck-
ee Fire Protection District and Liberty Energy – California Pacific Electric
Company would be the first responders in the event of an accidental spill or
release. The development of the proposed project would not physically inter-
fere with any potential clean-up response as these transformers are currently
surrounded by residential development to the south, west, and north.
No other hazardous substance or petroleum products were observed or rec-
orded on the project site. No unusual odors, pools of liquids, ponds, or la-
goons, stained soils or pavement, above ground storage tanks, or stressed veg-
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.8-13
etation are present at the project site. The five facilities identified on the
EDR Radius Map Report located within a 2-mile radius of the project site, are
either down-gradient or are located too far away from the proposed project
site to have an impact. Therefore, implementation of the project would not
create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasona-
bly foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazard-
ous materials into the environment and associated impacts would be less than
significant.
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous ma-
terials, substances, or waste within ¼-mile of an existing or proposed
school.
The project site is not within ¼-mile of an existing or proposed school. The
closest school to the project site is the Glenshire Elementary School, located
approximately 1 mile to the west of the project site. Therefore, the project
would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazard-
ous materials, substances, or waste within ¼-mile of an existing or proposed
school and no impact would occur.
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
The Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites (Cortese) List is a planning docu-
ment used by the State, local agencies and developers to comply with CEQA
requirements in providing information about the location of hazardous mate-
rials release sites. Government Code Section 65962.5 requires Cal EPA to
develop at least annually an updated Cortese List. DTSC is responsible for a
portion of the information contained in the Cortese List. Other State and
local government agencies are required to provide additional hazardous mate-
rial release information for the Cortese List.5 The project site is not on a list
5 California Department of Toxic Substance Control, http://www.dtsc.
ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Cortese_List.cfm.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.8-14
on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.56 and no impact would occur.
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public
use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing
or working in the project area.
The project site is not within an airport land use plan, nor is it within 2 miles
of a public or private airport. The airport closest to the project site is the
Truckee Tahoe Airport, located approximately 4 miles to the west-southwest
of the project site. Therefore, the project would not expose persons to safety
hazards associated with an airport and no impact would occur.
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project ar-
ea.
The project site is not within an airport land use plan, nor is it within 2 miles
of a public or private airport. The airport closest to the project site is the
Truckee Tahoe Airport, located approximately 4 miles to the west-southwest
of the project site. Therefore, the project would not expose persons to safety
hazards associated with an airport. Thus, no further analysis of this issue is
required.
g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emer-
gency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
As discussed in Section 4.13, Public Services and Recreation, of this Draft
EIR, no project or cumulative impacts to fire protection services would occur
when considering the project’s design features, compliance with mandatory
regulations, including the payment of Truckee Fire Protection District
(TFPD) Development Impact Fees, and the recent expansion of their Station
95. The project’s internal roadway system provides residential and emergen-
6 California Department of Toxic Substance Control, Envirostor, Hazardous
Waste and Substance List, September 9, 2011.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.8-15
cy access. Vehicles would circulate through the project area using the internal
roadway system and main entrance point; however, secondary access for fire
safety would provide looped secondary emergency vehicle access and egress.
Emergency access would be provided by creating a secondary access point to
the project off of Edinburgh Drive. This secondary access point is located on
the western border of the project site and can be seen on Figure 3-5 in Chap-
ter 3, Project Description, of this Draft EIR. Furthermore, as illustrated on
Figure 3-13, the emergency access point would be constructed during Phase 1
of the project’s development phases. Therefore, the project would not impair
implementation of or physically interfere with an the Town of Truckee Emer-
gency Operations Plan, which addresses the Town’s responsibilities in emer-
gencies associated with natural disasters, including wildfires and associated
impacts would be less than significant.
h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death
involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urban-
ized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands.
As noted above, no project or cumulative impacts to fire protection services
would occur. Emergency access would be provided by creating a secondary
access point to the project off of Edinburgh Drive and would be constructed
during Phase 1 of the project’s development phases. It is not expected that
traffic congestion would create unsafe conditions for emergency evacuation
during a wildland fire event. As described in Section 4.14, Transportation
and Traffic, with the project all intersections studied in the project site vicini-
ty would continue to operate at acceptable levels, as evaluated for peak traffic
conditions, with the exception of the Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road
intersection, which currently operates at an unacceptable level. This intersec-
tion is to the west of State Route 267. Therefore, vehicles evacuating the pro-
ject site and Glenshire area would be able to access Interstate 80 to either the
east or west. In the event of an evacuation, vehicles could exit the area either
to the east or the west. Vehicles that exit to the west could make a left or
right turn at the Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection, at which
point they would have already evacuated the Glenshire area. These evacua-
tion routes would be feasible in both peak and non-peak hours. Therefore,
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.8-16
the two available points of egress from the Glenshire area are considered suf-
ficient for emergency evacuation situations.
Furthermore, the project would incorporate a number of fire safety features
in accordance with applicable TFPD fire-safety code and Town regulations
for construction, access, fire flows, and fire hydrants (e.g. spaced a maximum
of 500 feet apart). The project would install fire hydrants, provide a mini-
mum flow requirement of 1,500 gallons per minute (gpm) for a two-hour du-
ration with a 20 pounds per square inch (psi) residual, construct minimum 24-
foot-wide roadways, allow for adequate building spacing, use fire resistive
building materials, and insure adequate vegetative clearance around structures.
Fire lanes and turning radii would be designed in cooperation with local offi-
cials so as to be adequate for emergency and fire equipment vehicles. Pave-
ments would be designed with all weather surfaces and would be capable of
supporting emergency vehicles up to 40,000 pounds.
The project would be required to comply with the Town of Truckee Stand-
ard Condition for Fire Protection Services and obtain a “Will Serve” letter
from the TFPD prior to the issuance of building permits. In addition, the
project applicant would pay all mandatory Development Impact Fees as de-
termined by the Fire Chief or his designee after consultation with the appli-
cant. Subsequently, as illustrated in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, of
this Draft EIR, the project would be consistent will all applicable General
Plan policies aimed at reducing fire hazards in the Truckee area. Nonethe-
less, due to the introduction of residential homes in an area of dense vegeta-
tion and forested land, wildfire hazard impacts would be potentially signifi-
cant.
2. Cumulative Impacts
The project, in conjunction with the Town buildout identified in the Town of
Truckee 2025 General Plan, would cumulatively increase the potential for
wildfire and high voltage transmission line hazards in the project area. How-
ever, as with the project, the applicants of the projects in the TFPD’s service
area would be required to pay Developer Impact Fees to the TFUD, obtain a
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.8-17
‘Will Serve” letter, and be consistent with the applicable fire protection and
safety policies identified in the General Plan; combined, these regulatory re-
quirements would ensure any cumulative impacts from wildfire and high
voltage transmission line hazards would be less than significant. As stated
previously, the project and cumulative impacts to fire protection services
would be less than significant. With implementation of Mitigation Measure
HAZ-1a and -1b and consistency with General Plan policies designed to re-
duce impacts caused from exposure to natural and man-made hazards, con-
struction and operation of the proposed project would not contribute to any
potential cumulative impacts, and cumulative impacts from hazards and haz-
ardous materials would be less than significant.
E. Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact HAZ-1: The introduction of residential homes in an area of dense
vegetation and forested land could expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1a: The project applicant shall submit a fire
safety and fuel modification plan that provides for (1) adequate safety for
emergency fire equipment and evacuating residents and visitors, (2) a
point of attack or defense from a wild-fire, and (3) strategic siting of fuel
breaks, fire breaks, and greenbelts. Fuel modification shall include (1)
underbrush, dead and dying branches from trees shall be removed up to a
minimum of 100 feet from the perimeter of all structures, (2) all flamma-
ble vegetation within 10 feet from the edge of road and driveway pave-
ment shall be removed, and (3) all flammable vegetation within 30 feet of
all structures shall be removed. The plan shall be reviewed and approved
by the Truckee Fire Protection District prior to the issuance of building
permits.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1b: The project applicant shall ensure that fire
flow be provided to each hydrant at a rate of no less than 1,500 gallons
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.8-18
per minute (gpm) for a two-hour duration with 20-pounds per square
inch (psi) residual in residential areas.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.9-1
A. Introduction
This section addresses impacts of the proposed project on hydrology, water
quality, and flooding within the site and its surroundings. The analysis con-
tained within this section considers all short-term hydrologic impacts associ-
ated with construction and long-term impacts associated with buildout of the
Canyon Springs Subdivision, and addresses all factors contained within Ap-
pendix G, Environmental Checklist, of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) Guidelines. This analysis is based on review of available reports,
regulatory documents, site-specific environmental investigations, and site re-
connaissance conducted in August 2011. Based on this information, this sec-
tion describes potential impacts that may result from the proposed project
and identifies mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to a less-than-
significant level, if feasible.
B. Regulatory Framework
This section summarizes existing local, state, and federal laws, policies, and
regulations that apply to potential hydrology, water quality, and flooding
impacts associated with the proposed project.
1. Federal Laws and Regulations
a. Clean Water Act
Under the Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1977, the US Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (EPA) seeks to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the nation’s waters. The statute employs a variety of
regulatory and non-regulatory tools to reduce direct pollutant discharges into
waterways, finance municipal wastewater treatment facilities, and manage
polluted runoff. The CWA authorizes the EPA to implement water quality
regulations. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit program under Section 402(p) of the CWA controls water pollution
by regulating stormwater discharges into the waters of the United States.
California has an approved state NPDES program. The EPA has delegated
authority for water permitting to the State Water Resources Control Board
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.9-2
(SWRCB), which has nine regional boards. The Lahontan Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulates water quality in the project area.
Sections 401 and 404 of the CWA are administered through the Regulatory
Program of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and regulate the wa-
ter quality of all discharges of fill or dredged material into waters of the Unit-
ed States including wetlands and intermittent stream channels. Section 401,
Title 33, Section 1341 of the CWA sets forth water-quality certification re-
quirements for “any applicant applying for a federal license or permit to con-
duct any activity including, but not limited to, the construction or operation
of facilities, which may result in any discharge into the navigable waters.”
Work associated with road/stream crossings in the proposed project area and
other construction activities may require the acquisition of a permit from the
ACOE under Section 404 of the CWA and water quality certification from
the Lahontan RWQCB under Section 401 of the CWA. Section 401 certifica-
tion is required from the Lahontan RWQCB prior to final issuance of Section
404 permits by the ACOE.
i. Total Maximum Daily Load
Section 303(d) of the CWA requires that each state identify water bodies or
segments of water bodies that are “impaired” (i.e., not meeting one or more of
the water quality standards established by the state). These waters are identi-
fied in the Section 303(d) list as waters that are polluted and need further at-
tention to support their beneficial uses. Once the water body or segment is
listed, the state is required to establish Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
for the pollutant causing the conditions of impairment. TMDL is the maxi-
mum amount of a pollutant that a water body can receive and still meet water
quality standards. Typically, TMDL is the sum of the allowable loads of a
single pollutant from all contributing point and non-point sources. The in-
tent of the 303(d) list is to identify water bodies that require future develop-
ment of a TMDL to maintain water quality. In accordance with Section
303(d), the RWQCB has identified impaired water bodies within its jurisdic-
tion, and the pollutant or stressor responsible for impairing the water quality.
The Middle Truckee River, which runoff from the project area ultimately
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.9-3
drains to, is listed for sediment. The primary sources of sediment identified
in the TMDL are dirt roads, urban stormwater runoff, legacy erosion sites,
and in some subwatersheds, graded ski runs.
ii. Federal Emergency Management Agency
The Town is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP),
a federal program administered by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA). Participants in the NFIP must satisfy certain mandated
floodplain management criteria. The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968
has adopted, as a desired level of protection, an expectation that development
should be protected from floodwater damage produced by the Intermediate
Regional Flood, defined as a flood that has an average frequency of occur-
rence on the order of once in 100 years, although such a flood may occur in
any given year. The Town has adopted a floodplain management ordinance
as a part of their Development Code that exceeds the minimum requirements
established by FEMA. The Town is occasionally audited by the California
Department of Water Resources to ensure that proper implementation of
FEMA floodplain management regulations is occurring.
2. State Laws and Regulations
a. Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
In 1969, the California Legislature enacted the Porter-Cologne Water Quality
Control Act to preserve, enhance, and restore the quality of the state’s water
resources. The act established the SWRCB and nine RWQCBs as the princi-
pal state agencies with the responsibility for controlling water quality in Cali-
fornia. Under the act, water quality policy is established, water quality stand-
ards are enforced for both surface water and groundwater, and the discharges
of pollutants from point and non-point sources are regulated. The act author-
izes the SWRCB to establish water quality principles and guidelines for long-
range resource planning including groundwater and surface water manage-
ment programs and control and use of recycled water.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.9-4
b. Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (Basin Plan)
Section 13240 of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act requires
each RWQCB to formulate and adopt water quality control plans, or basin
plans, for all areas within their region. The Porter-Cologne Act also requires
each RWQCB to establish water quality objectives within the basin plans.
Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 131 requires each state to adopt
water quality standards by designating water uses to be protected and adopt-
ing water quality criteria that protect the designated uses. In the State of Cali-
fornia, the beneficial uses and water quality objectives are the State’s water
quality standards. The project site is located within and regulated by the
Lahontan Region Water Quality Control Plan. The project site ultimately
drains to the Truckee River, and the Lahontan Region Water Quality Control
Plan lists specific water quality objectives for the segment of the Truckee Riv-
er below the confluence with Donner Creek.
In addition, Chapter 4 of the Basin Plan prohibits the discharge or threatened
discharge, attributable to human activities, of solid or liquid waste materials
including soil, silt, clay, sand, and other organic and earthen materials to lands
within the 100-year floodplain of the Truckee River or any tributary to the
Truckee River. However, exemptions may be granted by the Lahontan
RWQCB that fall within the following categories of new projects:
¤ Projects solely intended to reduce or mitigate existing sources of erosion
or water pollution, or to restore the functional value to previously dis-
turbed floodplain areas.
¤ Bridge abutments, approaches, or other essential transportation facilities
identified in an approved General Plan.
¤ Projects necessary to protect public health or safety or to provide essen-
tial public services.
¤ Projects necessary for public recreation.
¤ Projects that will provide outdoor public recreation within portions of
the 100-year floodplain that have been substantially altered by grading
and/or filing activities which occurred prior to June 26, 1975.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.9-5
c. Statewide National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General
Permit for Construction
The SWRCB is responsible for implementing the CWA and issues the
NPDES permits to cities and counties through RWQCBs. The project site is
located in a portion of the state that is regulated by the Lahontan RWQCB.
The SWRCB has issued a statewide General Permit (Water Quality Order
No. 99-08-DWQ) for construction activities within the state. The Construc-
tion General Permit (CGP) is implemented and enforced by the RWQCBs.
The CGP applies to construction activity that disturbs 1 acre or more and
requires the preparation and implementation of a stormwater pollution pre-
vention plan (SWPPP) that identifies best management practices (BMPs) to
minimize pollutants from discharging from the construction site to the max-
imum extent practicable. On September 2, 2009, the SWRCB adopted a new
CGP (Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, as amended by Order No. 2010-0014-
DWQ) that superseded the existing CGP on July 1, 2010. A summary of the
differences between the prior CGP and the current CGP follows:
¤ Rainfall Erosivity Waiver. This General Permit includes the option al-
lowing a small construction site (>1 and <5 acres) to self-certify if the
rainfall erosivity value (R value) for their site’s given location and time
frame computed to be less than or equal to 5.
¤ Technology-Based Numeric Action Levels. This General Permit in-
cludes numeric action levels (NALs) for pH and turbidity.
¤ Technology-Based Numeric Effluent Limitations. This General Per-
mit contains daily average numeric effluent limitations (NELs) for pH
during any construction phase where there is a high risk of pH discharge
and daily average NELs turbidity for all discharges in Risk Level 3. The
daily average NEL for turbidity is set at 500 turbidity (NTU) to repre-
sent the minimum technology that sites need to employ (to meet the tra-
ditional Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)/Best
Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) standard) and the
traditional, numeric receiving water limitations for turbidity.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.9-6
¤ Risk-Based Permitting Approach. This General Permit establishes
three levels of risk possible for a construction site. Risk is calculated in
two parts: (1) Project Sediment Risk, and (2) Receiving Water Risk.
¤ Minimum Requirements Specified. This General Permit imposes more
minimum BMPs and requirements that were previously only required as
elements of the SWPPP or were suggested by guidance.
¤ Project Site Soil Characteristics Monitoring and Reporting. This
General Permit provides the option for dischargers to monitor and re-
port the soil characteristics at their project location. The primary pur-
pose of this requirement is to provide better risk determination and even-
tually better program evaluation.
¤ Effluent Monitoring and Reporting. This General Permit requires ef-
fluent monitoring and reporting for pH and turbidity in stormwater dis-
charges. The purpose of this monitoring is to determine compliance with
the NELs and evaluate whether NALs included in this General Permit
are exceeded.
¤ Receiving Water Monitoring and Reporting. This General Permit re-
quires some Risk Level 3 dischargers to monitor receiving waters and
conduct bio-assessments.
¤ Post-Construction Stormwater Performance Standards. This General
Permit specifies runoff reduction requirements for all sites not covered
by a Phase I or Phase II MS4 NPDES permit, to avoid, minimize and/or
mitigate post-construction stormwater runoff impacts.
¤ Rain Event Action Plan. This General Permit requires certain sites to
develop and implement a Rain Event Action Plan (REAP) that must be
designed to protect all exposed portions of the site within 48 hours prior
to any likely precipitation event.
¤ Annual Reporting. This General Permit requires all projects that are
enrolled for more than one continuous three-month period to submit in-
formation and to annually certify that their site is in compliance with
these requirements. The primary purpose of this requirement is to pro-
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.9-7
vide information needed for overall program evaluation and pubic in-
formation.
¤ Certification/Training Requirements for Key Project Personnel.
This General Permit requires that key personnel (e.g., SWPPP preparers,
inspectors) have specific training or certifications to ensure their level of
knowledge and skills are adequate to ensure their ability to design and
evaluate project specifications that will comply with General Permit re-
quirements.
The Lahontan RWQCB has also established project guidelines for erosion
control that include specific BMPs that are required to be incorporated into
construction projects and has established waste discharge prohibitions and
exception criteria for projects within the Truckee River Hydrologic Unit.
Certain actions during construction may also need to conform to a General
Permit (Water Quality Order No.5-00-175) which requires that a permit be
acquired for dewatering and other low threat discharges to surface waters,
provided that they do not contain significant quantities of pollutants and ei-
ther (1) are four months or less in duration, or (2) the average dry weather
discharge does not exceed 0.25 million gallons per day (mgd). Examples of
activities that may require the acquisition of such a permit include well devel-
opment water, construction dewatering, pump/well testing, pipeline/tank
pressure testing, pipeline/tank flushing or dewatering, condensate discharges,
water supply system discharges, and other miscellaneous dewatering/low
threat discharges. However, the actions applicable to the proposed project
may already be covered under the CGP, and therefore a separate permit may
not be required.
3. Local Regulations and Policies
a. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit for the
Discharge of Stormwater from Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer
Systems
The federal NPDES program is administered locally by the Lahontan
RWQCB. The Lahontan RWQCB has delegated responsibility for imple-
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.9-8
mentation of stormwater regulations in the vicinity of the Plan Area to the
Town. The General Permit for the Discharge of Stormwater from Small
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems, Water Quality Order (WQO) No.
2003-0005-DWQ (Small MS4 General Permit), requires that Dischargers (such
as the Town) to develop and implement a Stormwater Management Program
(SWMP). The SWMP describes the BMPs, measurable goals, and time sched-
ules for implementation as well as assigns responsibility for each task. The
MS4 General Permit requires all permittees to develop and implement a
SWMP designed to reduce the discharge of pollutants through their MS4s to
the maximum extent practicable.
A SWMP has been prepared by the Town and has been approved by the Wa-
ter Board (Permit No.6A290712005). The SWMP describes the programs to
be implemented in the Town to control stormwater pollutants. The SWMP
includes guidance for new development and significant redevelopment pro-
jects. The SWMP includes by reference Attachment 4 of the General Permit,
which provide specific design standards applicable to the project based on the
size and nature of the proposed project. As specified by the MS4 General
Permit, all new development projects, regardless of size, should incorporate
appropriate source control and site design measures that minimize storm-
water pollutant discharges to the maximum extent practicable. The proposed
project would be required to comply with the terms of the SWMP. This in-
cludes (but is not limited to):
¤ Numeric Sizing Criteria for Pollutant Removal Treatment Systems.
The project must include source controls, design measures, and treatment
controls to minimize stormwater pollutant discharges. Treatment con-
trols must be sized to treat a specific amount—about 85 percent—of aver-
age annual runoff.
¤ Operation and Maintenance of Treatment Measures. Treatment con-
trols often do not work unless adequately maintained. The permit re-
quires an operations and maintenance (O&M) program, which includes:
(1) identifying the properties with treatment controls, (2) developing
agreements with private entities to maintain the controls, and (3) periodic
inspection, maintenance (as needed), and reporting.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.9-9
¤ Limitation on Increase of Peak Stormwater Runoff Discharge Rates.
Urbanization creates impervious surfaces that reduce the landscape’s nat-
ural ability to absorb water and release it slowly to creeks. These imper-
vious surfaces increase peak flows in creeks and can cause erosion. Pro-
jects must evaluate the potential for this to occur and provide mitigation
as necessary.
b. Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan
The following goals from the Land Use, Conservation and Open Space, and
Safety Elements of the Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan are applicable to
hydrology and water quality (see Table 4.9-1)
c. Town of Truckee Development Code
The Town’s Development Code includes several chapters that address condi-
tions and requirements associated with storm drainage. Chapter 18.34 (Flood
Plain Management) addresses development and permitting requirements and
restrictions associated with building within the regulatory floodplain (includ-
ing the minimum requirements established by FEMA). Chapter 18.38 (Lake
and River/Stream Corridor Development) addresses setback requirements
along stream corridors. Chapter 18.30, Section 050 (Drainage and Storm-
water Runoff) addresses requirements related to drainage and erosion control,
runoff treatment, and ongoing maintenance. Section 5 of these standards de-
scribes accepted methodologies for runoff calculations, design criteria, and
standards for drainage facilities and structures, and requirements for the prep-
aration and submittal of drainage reports. Section 8 of these standards de-
scribes requirements for erosion and sediment control, including the require-
ments for the preparation of erosion and sediment control plans.
d. Town of Truckee Municipal Code – Stormwater Quality Ordinance
The Town recently adopted a Stormwater Quality Ordinance (Article 11.01
of the Municipal Code) to enhance and protect the quality of waters of the
State in Truckee by reducing pollutants in stormwater discharges to the max-
imum extent practicable, control stormwater discharges to the storm drain
system, and cause the use of best management practices by the Town and its
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.9-10
TABLE 4.9-1 TRUCKEE GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES
PERTAINING TO HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Policy or
Goal No. Goals and Policies
Goal LU-4 Coordinate land development with provision of services and infra-
structure.
LU-P4.5
Require new infrastructure and development to be designed and
built to manage stormwater runoff and to minimize or eliminate
harmful impacts to property prone to flooding, water quality,
and riparian, wetland, and meadow habitats. When infrastruc-
ture is replaced or retrofitted, require the upgrading of storm-
water management systems to minimize or eliminate these im-
pacts.
Goal COS-11 Protect water quality and quantity in creeks, lakes, natural drainag-
es, and groundwater basins.
COS-P11.1 Minimize excessive paving that negatively impacts surface water
runoff and groundwater recharge rates.
COS-P11.2
Protect surface and groundwater resources from contamination
from runoff containing pollutants and sediment, through imple-
mentation of the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s
Lahontan Region's, Best Management Practices.
COS-P11.3
Cooperate with State and local agencies in efforts to identify and
eliminate all sources of existing and potential point and non-
point sources of pollution to ground and surface waters, includ-
ing leaking fuel tanks, discharges from storm drains, auto dis-
mantling, dump sites, sanitary waste systems, parking lots, road-
ways, and logging and mining operations.
COS-P11.5
Require new development projects that have the potential to
impact local water quality through increased stormwater runoff
or erosion to include analysis of water quality impacts as a com-
ponent of project review and to integrate mitigation measures
that would reduce identified impacts to an acceptable level.
COS-P11.6
Utilize Low Impact Development and Best Management Practic-
es established in the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s
Truckee River Hydrologic Unit Project Guidelines for Erosion
Control, and the State of California Stormwater Best Manage-
ment Practices Handbooks, and other resources such as the Prac-
tice of Low Impact Development (US Department of Housing
and Urban Development) and Water Quality Model Code and
Guidebook (State of Oregon, Department of Land Conservation
and Development) as guidelines for water quality and erosion
control measures required by the Town.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
TABLE 4.9-1 TRUCKEE GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES
PERTAINING TO HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
(CONTINUED)
4.9-11
Policy or
Goal No. Goals and Policies
COS-P11.9
Recognize the importance of stormwater management in protect-
ing all water resources in Truckee, for example, flood control,
surface, and ground water quality, and river, stream and lake
health.
Goal COS-13 Reduce particulate matter pollution in Truckee to meet State and
federal ambient air quality standards.
COS-P13.1
Require multi-family residential, commercial, industrial, subdivi-
sions and other discretionary development to maintain con-
sistency with the goals, policies, and control strategies of the
Town’s Particulate Matter Air Quality Management Plan.
COS-P13.2
Existing non-paved roads within new development and subdivi-
sion, and existing off-site non-paved roads that serve new devel-
opment and subdivisions shall be paved to the extent necessary to
offset emissions generated by the development and subdivision
traffic to the degree feasible. New non-paved roads shall not be
allowed for new development and subdivisions except for single
family residences, secondary residential units, and duplexes on
existing lots. New paving shall take into consideration the poli-
cies under Goal COS-11 concerning minimization of impacts to
water quality and groundwater recharge that may result from
increases in paved areas.
COS-P13.3
Require all construction projects to implement dust control
measures to reduce particulate matter emissions due to disturb-
ance of exposed top-soils. Such measures would include watering
of active areas where disturbance occurs, covering haul loads,
maintaining clean access roads, and cleaning the wheels of con-
struction vehicles accessing disturbed areas of the site.
Goal SAF-2 Reduce hazards associated with flooding.
SAF-P2.1
Continue to work with appropriate local, State, and federal agen-
cies (particularly FEMA) to maintain the most current flood
hazard and floodplain information and use it as a basis for project
review and to guide development in accordance with federal,
State, and local standards.
SAF-P2.2 Continue to participate in the National Flood Insurance Pro-
gram (NFIP).
SAF-P2.3
Incorporate stormwater drainage systems in development pro-
jects to effectively control the rate and amount of runoff, so as to
prevent increases in downstream flooding potential.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
TABLE 4.9-1 TRUCKEE GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES
PERTAINING TO HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
(CONTINUED)
4.9-12
Policy or
Goal No. Goals and Policies
SAF-P2.4
Discourage development within the Truckee River floodplain
and adjacent to other waterways to minimize risks associated
with flooding.
Source: Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan.
citizens that will reduce the adverse effects of polluted runoff discharges to
waters of the State. The ordinance seeks to promote these purposes by:
¤ Prohibiting illicit discharges to the storm drain system.
¤ Establishing authority to adopt requirements for stormwater manage-
ment, including source control requirements to reduce pollution to the
maximum extent practicable.
¤ Establishing authority to adopt requirements for municipal operations to
reduce stormwater pollution and erosion to the maximum extent practi-
cable.
¤ Establishing authority to adopt requirements for public and private de-
velopment projects to reduce stormwater pollution and erosion both dur-
ing construction and after the project is complete.
¤ Establishing authority that will enable the Town to implement and en-
force the Stormwater Management Program (SWMP) adopted by the
Town.
e. Low-Impact Development
The Town encourages the use of Low Impact Development (LID) methods to
prevent erosion both during the construction project and for the long term.
LID is a stormwater management and land development strategy that empha-
sizes conservation and use of on-site natural features integrated with engi-
neered, small-scale hydrologic controls to more closely mimic natural hydro-
logic functions. It involves dispersing runoff water into vegetated areas for
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.9-13
infiltration. The type of hydrologic controls should be designed for the soil
and subsurface conditions specific to the site.
BMP plans should not concentrate runoff. Roof and driveway runoff should
be dispersed to infiltration systems and landscaped areas capable of infiltrating
runoff from impervious surfaces. General principles of LID include:
¤ Conservation: Conserve natural vegetation and soil.
¤ Site Design: Design site to minimize total impervious area.
¤ Direct runoff into or across vegetated areas to filter runoff and encourage
groundwater recharge.
¤ Use integrated management practices to reduce runoff from impervious
surfaces and retain pre-development time of concentration.
C. Existing Conditions
1. Climate
The Truckee-area climate is characterized by cold, wet winters and short,
relatively mild summers. Annual precipitation has varied from 16 inches
(1976) to 54.6 inches (1996), with a one-day high of 5.2 inches of precipitation
on February 1, 1963. Typically, about 75 percent of the precipitation occurs
during the winter and spring (December to May), predominantly as snowfall.
Of this precipitation, the average annual snowfall amounts to 203.6 inches;
with a high occurring in 1952 of 401.4 inches of snow.
2. Site Conditions
The site topography generally slopes gently downward to the northwest
along two ridges and varies in elevation from approximately 6,120 feet in the
southeast to about 5,920 feet in the northwest. Ground surface elevations rise
to 6,750 feet for watershed areas that influence the on-site drainage ways.
Many on-site trails and unpaved roads traverse the site and are well-used by
local residents. Most roads and trails are unimproved and many exhibit evi-
dence of significant erosion near stream crossings. The vegetation communi-
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.9-14
ty is dominated by Jeffrey Pine and related understory shrubs such as bitter-
brush, sagebrush, and rabbitbrush. Vegetation in wetland areas is dominated
by sedges, rushes and other hydrophitic grasses and forbs. Most wetland-
upland boundaries are marked by an abrupt shift from hydrophitic vegetation
to upland vegetation. The site was likely logged in the past, removing many
of the larger diameter trees.
3. Drainage Features and Hydrology
The proposed project area is located in the Truckee River Hydrologic Unit.
Several ephemeral drainages that include wetlands trend northeasterly
through the northern, central, and southern portions of the site. All of the
waters within the project site are considered Relatively Perennial Waters
(RPWs) and are tributaries to the Truckee River. Field reconnaissance was
not conducted during spring runoff. However, the hydrology of the ephem-
eral drainages on-site is likely driven by surface water runoff during spring
snowmelt periods and some portion of subsurface flow discharge later in the
season. Some of this surface runoff likely originates from the network of
highly compacted trails and roads on-site, many of which cross ephemeral
drainages and wet meadows on the property.
a. Stormwater Runoff, Erosion, and Sedimentation
Water quality problems related to stormwater discharges, erosion, and sedi-
mentation are among the most frequent and widespread water quality prob-
lems. Eroded sediment is often carried to surface waters in stormwater. The
term “stormwater” includes surface runoff resulting from rainfall and snow-
melt. It is synonymous with “urban runoff,” “highway runoff,” and “surface
runoff.” The project involves possible stormwater quality impacts that are
both short-term associated with construction as well as long-term, permanent
impacts associated with creation of impervious areas (e.g. paving, houses).
This proposed project is subject to permitting and regulations as outlined in
the Regulatory Framework section above. These short and long-term impacts
are considered individually in Sections D and E below.
Under natural conditions, most rainfall and snowmelt is absorbed by soils
and taken up by vegetation, and very little surface runoff occurs. Creation of
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.9-15
large amounts of impervious surface (e.g. roads, parking lots, and buildings)
can greatly increase the potential for surface runoff, reduce the potential for
soil/vegetation treatment of chemicals in rain and snow, and add a large varie-
ty of possible contaminants to the runoff discharge downstream. Urbaniza-
tion of a watershed affects surface runoff quality by increasing intensity of
peak discharges, runoff volume per storm, runoff velocity during the storm,
and the frequency and severity of flooding. These changes can lead to in-
creases in stream bedload transport and streambank erosion, and to conse-
quent degradation of aquatic habitat. Erosion is a natural process, which
tends to be accelerated by large-scale soil disturbance and concentrated human
activity in a watershed. Sedimentation of surface waters affects beneficial uses
by increasing turbidity and physically altering streambed habitat. Sediment
can reduce the hydraulic capacity of stream channels, causing an increase in
flood peaks and flood damage. Sediment can fill drainage channels, especially
along roads, plug culverts, and storm drainage systems.
b. Groundwater
A site reconnaissance was conducted in June 2004 by Geocon Consultants,
Inc. Surface water was observed in the northwestern portion of the northern
most drainage, within the wetlands area. Groundwater was not observed
flowing to the surface on-site, but a spring is depicted on the Martis Peak
Quadrangle (photo updated 1969) as being near the south property boundary.
One well was observed on the site during the field reconnaissance, the well
appeared to be capped and not in service. According to the Phase I Environ-
mental Site Assessment (ESA) performed for the site (Section 12.0, Reference
12), the well was drilled in 1983 to a total depth of 252 feet (see Appendix F of
this Draft EIR). The static water level was at 190 feet below the ground sur-
face at the time of drilling. Pump test results indicated a well yield of 10.5
gallons per-minute (gpm), which later improved to about 15 gpm. Water
quality analysis results were within U.S. EPA standards, although iron and
manganese were somewhat elevated. Arsenic was not included in the testing.
According to the Phase I ESA, arsenic is known to occur in groundwater in
the Glenshire area at concentrations above U.S. EPA maximum contaminant
Level of 0.050 milligrams per liter. The water supply for the project would
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.9-16
be provided by Truckee Donner Public Utilities District (see Section 4.15,
Utilities and Services Systems, of this Draft EIR) and would not rely on indi-
vidual wells.
c. Flood Mapping
Figure 4.9-1 shows the mapped FEMA flood zones in the vicinity of the pro-
posed project site. The 100-year FEMA flood zone is largely contained with-
in the ravine of the Truckee River, which is several hundred feet below the
elevation of the project site.
For the two main ephemeral drainages on the project site, 100-year floodplain
limits and 50-foot setbacks are shown on Figure 3-6.
d. Proposed Drainage Plan
The preliminary drainage plan for the proposed project site was completed in
2003.1 A revised site/drainage plan was prepared in April 2011, reflecting 37
fewer building lots than the original 2003 plan. A Final Hydrology and Hy-
draulics Report is not planned to be prepared. Prior to initiation of construc-
tion, the project proponent would need to demonstrate that the post-
development design storm hydrograph leaving the project is not changed
from pre-project conditions such that downstream drainage structures (cul-
verts, bridges, etc.) remain adequate post-development. To this end, soil infil-
tration rates, pond detention times, and other suggested revisions from the
2007 technical review by Geocon would also need to be incorporated into the
construction plans to illustrate the feasibility of the proposed drainage design.
The project site plan (see Figure 3-6) incorporates four floodplain road cross-
ings. Pre-cast, concrete arch bridges are planned to span the width of the
drainageways, and would be designed to accommodate a 100-year flood event.
The project proponent has proposed a minimum 50-foot setback from 100-
year floodplains for all drainages on the property. The project has been
1 CFA of Reno Nevada, October 3, 2003, Preliminary Hydrology and Hydrau-
lics Report for Tahoe Boca, Appendix F of 2003 DEIR.
FIGURESAF-2
AREASSUBJECTTOFLOODING
TOWNOFTRUCKEE
2025GENERALPLAN
00.51Mile
Source:FederalEmergencyManagementAgency,1998Note:ThisfigureincludesfloodhazardmappingforNevadaCountyonly
FEMAFLOODHAZARDZONES
ZoneA:Subjectto100-YearFlood.BaseElevationUndetermined.
Annualprobabilityoffloodingof1%orgreater.
ZoneX500:Areabetweenthelimitofthe100-yearand500-yearflood;
orcertainareassubjectto100-yearfloodwithaveragedepthsofless
thanonefoot.AnnualProbablilityofFlooding0.2%to1%
ZoneD:UnstudiedArea:FloodHazardsUndetermined
ZoneX:AreasOutsideof500-yearfloodplain
§¨¦80
§¨¦80
§¨¦80
§¨¦80
267
267
89
89
T r u c k e e R iv e r
Truckee-Tahoe
Airport
Tahoe
Donner
Gle n s h i r e D riv e
D o r c h esterWay
DonnerLake
P r os s e r L a k e
TruckeeTownLimits
ProposedSphereofInfluence
Project Site
Creek or other Drainage
FIGURESAF-2
AREASSUBJECTTOFLOODING
TOWNOFTRUCKEE
2025GENERALPLAN
00.51Mile
Source:FederalEmergencyManagementAgency,1998Note:ThisfigureincludesfloodhazardmappingforNevadaCountyonly
FEMAFLOODHAZARDZONES
ZoneA:Subjectto100-YearFlood.BaseElevationUndetermined.
Annualprobabilityoffloodingof1%orgreater.
ZoneX500:Areabetweenthelimitofthe100-yearand500-yearflood;
orcertainareassubjectto100-yearfloodwithaveragedepthsofless
thanonefoot.AnnualProbablilityofFlooding0.2%to1%
ZoneD:UnstudiedArea:FloodHazardsUndetermined
ZoneX:AreasOutsideof500-yearfloodplain
§¨¦80
§¨¦80
§¨¦80
§¨¦80
267
267
89
89
T r u c k e e R iv e r
Truckee-Tahoe
Airport
Tahoe
Donner
Glen s h i r e D riv e
D o r c h esterWay
D o n n e r L a k e
P r os s e r L a k e
TruckeeTownLimits
ProposedSphereofInfluence
Project Site
Creek or other Drainage
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1998 Note: This figure includes flood hazard mapping for Nevada County only.
FIGURE 4.9-1
FEMA FLOOD ZONES
10 2 MilesNORTH
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.9-18
configured to avoid these setback areas and, in most cases, provides an addi-
tional 20-foot setback to any structure.
The project would include construction of vegetated, earthen swales on both
sides of the site’s crowned, paved roads to convey flows to decentralized
treatment and infiltration facilities. Road runoff from asphalt during a 20-
year event is anticipated to be collected, treated, and infiltrated within vege-
tated swales and detention ponds. Peak drainage flow rates from the 20-year
event are planned to be detained to that estimated for pre-development condi-
tions. Flows in excess of the 20-year storm event would bypass these treat-
ment/infiltration facilities via rock-armored outfalls or other energy dissipa-
tion structures and discharge to the nearest drainage way.
D. Standards of Significance
The proposed project would have a significant impact with regard to hydrol-
ogy and water quality if it would in the short-term (construction period) and
long-term (post-project):
¤ Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.
¤ Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g. the pro-
duction rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which
would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted).
¤ Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, includ-
ing through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner
which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site.
¤ Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, includ-
ing through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substan-
tially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or off-site.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.9-19
¤ Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of ex-
isting or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial ad-
ditional sources of polluted runoff.
¤ Otherwise substantially degrade water quality.
¤ Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal
Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood
hazard delineation map.
¤ Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede
or redirect flood flows.
¤ Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee
or dam.
¤ Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
¤ Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facili-
ties or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects.
E. Impact Discussion
1. Project Impacts
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.
During the construction period, the proposed project would involve grading,
excavation, and potential cut and fill activity. Ground disturbance associated
with these activities has the potential to cause erosion of exposed surfaces dur-
ing rainfall events and snowmelt. Runoff has the potential to cause sedimen-
tation of on-site and off-site watercourses. In the short-term, this is a poten-
tially significant impact.
Following project construction, creation of impervious surfaces (roads, hous-
es) and slight changes of local topography has the potential to alter surface
runoff rates and drainage patterns from the site. Impervious surfaces limit
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.9-20
infiltration rates, possible groundwater recharge and can increase surface run-
off rates and drainage peak flows downstream. Increased runoff rates and
concentrated flows associated with drainage of roadways can result in aggres-
sive erosion and gully formation and transport of sediment to downstream
drainage structures. Urban runoff from roadways, driveways, and parking
lots may carry metals and petroleum-based contaminants to waterways. In
the long-term, these are potentially significant impacts.
b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g. the pro-
duction rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which
would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted).
The water supply for the project would be provided by Truckee Donner Pub-
lic Utilities District and would not rely on on-site wells. According to the
2011 Truckee Donner PUD Urban Water Management Plan, the District
currently has 12 active wells in the Truckee area and 1 in the Hirschdale area
that supply potable water to residents and customers. The Plan also states
that local water resources are adequate to meet projected buildout conditions
through the year 2023, and that the available production capacity is currently
sufficient to meet existing demands. The District presently obtains its drink-
ing water through the pumping of groundwater from the Martis Valley
Groundwater Basin. No additional well-drilling is proposed for the proposed
project, nor are any additional production wells proposed for the Canyon
Springs project area in the foreseeable future. The two nearest wells to the
Canyon Springs project area are the Glenshire Drive Well and the Martis Val-
ley Well No. 1, which are both outside of the proposed project area.2 There
is no pumping proposed for the Glenshire valley, which includes the Canyon
Springs project area. Construction and full buildout (creation of roads, hous-
es, etc.) would decrease localized infiltration capacity across individual parcels
2 Truckee Donner Public Utility District, 2011, 2011 Truckee Donner PUD
Urban Water Management Plan, Figure 3-1 Location of Water Production Facilities,
page 3-3.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.9-21
and roadways. However, net infiltration across the project area, hence poten-
tial groundwater recharge would remain unchanged through the use of LID
principles. These include such practices as water capture and infiltration of
stormwater runoff in close proximity to the source (e.g. in roadside swales
and detention ponds). Therefore the overall potential decrease in infiltration-
driven groundwater recharge across the project area would likely be less than
significant.
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, includ-
ing through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner
which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site.
As discussed above and illustrated in the project site plan (Figure 3-6), the
project does not propose to alter the main drainage features or topography of
the site. Building setbacks and construction of roadways along existing
paths/dirt roads are such that the existing site drainage ways remain un-
altered. Localized erosion during construction is possible, though it would be
unlikely to reach 303(d)-listed waterways or result in siltation off-site. This
impact is less than significant.
d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, includ-
ing through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substan-
tially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or off-site.
As discussed above and illustrated in the project site plan (Figure 3-6), the
proposed project does not propose to alter the main drainage features or to-
pography of the site. Creation of impervious surfaces across the project site
may result in greater surface runoff rates and peak volumes, though net sur-
face runoff volumes leaving the site are unlikely to change substantially as a
result of deployment of infiltration swales and detention ponds along drain-
age ways. No downstream flooding potential is anticipated. This impact is
less than significant.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.9-22
e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff.
As discussed above and illustrated in the project site plan (Figure 3-6), the
proposed project does not alter the main drainage features or topography of
the site. Creation of impervious surfaces across the project site would result
in greater surface runoff rates and peak volumes, though net surface runoff
volumes leaving the site are unlikely to change substantially as a result of de-
ployment of infiltration swales and detention ponds along drainage ways.
Planned detention storage ponds would be designed to contain site drainage
flows from 20-year runoff events such that downstream drainage systems are
not impacted by the proposed development. Stormwater runoff from road-
ways is expected to be treated through drainage way vegetated infiltration
swales and settling in detention ponds such that downstream pollution poten-
tial is minimized. This impact is less than significant.
f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality.
See above items a, c, and e.
g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal
Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood
hazard delineation map.
As discussed above and illustrated in the project site plan (Figure 3-6) and the
FEMA floodplain map (Figure 4.9-1), the proposed project does not propose
to construct structures within the NFIP-mapped 100-year floodplain of the
Truckee River, nor in the 100-year floodplain delineation for the two primary
drainages (blueline waterways) of the project site. The project area would be
located completely outside of the 100-year floodplain of the Truckee River as
mapped by FEMA. In addition, proposed bridges would be designed to span
the entire width of the drainage way and would not create any disturbance
within the 100-year floodplain as calculated by the project engineer. Any
underground utilities that have to cross a stream would be constructed utiliz-
ing a jack and bore method or would be mounted under the bridge deck in
order to avoid stream disturbance. Finally, the project has designated all of
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.9-23
the drainage ways as open space areas where no development would occur
and established a 100-foot buffer zone from the edge of the drainage ways.
For these reasons, this impact is less than significant.
h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede
or redirect flood flows.
As discussed above and illustrated in the project site plan (Figure 3-6) and the
FEMA floodplain map (Figure 4.9-1), the proposed project does not allow
construction of structures within the NFIP mapped 100-yr floodplain of the
Truckee River, nor in the 100-yr floodplain delineation for the two primary
drainages of the project site. This impact is less than significant.
i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee
or dam.
As discussed above and illustrated in the project site plan (Figure 3-6) and the
FEMA floodplain map (Figure 4.9-1), the proposed project does not allow
construction of structures within the NFIP mapped 100-year floodplain of
the Truckee River, nor in the 100-yr floodplain delineation for the two pri-
mary drainages of the project site. There are no dams or related impound-
ment structures proposed for the site that pose a risk of flooding. This im-
pact is less than significant.
j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
A seiche is a wave that oscillates in lakes, bays, or gulfs from a few minutes to
a few hours as a result of seismic or atmospheric disturbances. A tsunami is a
very large ocean wave caused by an underwater earthquake or volcanic erup-
tion. Hazards associated with mudflow typically affect structures which are
located at the base of slopes or within close proximity to the area of flow.
The potential for mudflows to impact the project site are low because the
project is not located at the base of a steep slope. The potential for seiches
and tsunamis to impact the project site does not exist because there are no
large bodies of water in close proximity to the site. Donner Lake is located
approximately 8.5 miles to the southwest of the project site and Lake Tahoe is
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.9-24
located over 12 miles northwest of the project site. Reservoirs located near
the site include the Boca Reservoir located approximately 2.5 miles to the
northwest of the project site, Prosser Creek Reservoir located approximately
3.5 miles to the northwest of the project site, and the Stampede Reservoir
located approximately 8 miles to the northwest of the project site. Therefore,
impacts associated with seiches, tsunamis, or mudflows are less than significant
and no mitigation measures are required.
k. Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facili-
ties or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects.
As discussed above (items c, d, and e), the proposed project includes the crea-
tion of impervious surfaces across the project site and construction of storm-
water infiltration swales and detention ponds close to the sources of runoff.
Planned detention storage ponds would be designed to contain site drainage
flows from 20-year runoff events such that downstream drainage systems are
not impacted by the proposed development. Stormwater runoff from road-
ways is proposed to be treated through vegetated infiltration swales and set-
tling in detention ponds close to the sources of runoff. No large-scale storm-
water drainage facilities (such as concrete spillways or channels) are proposed.
Therefore, this impact is less than significant.
F. Cumulative Impacts
In the short-term, land disturbance and potential for discharge of pollutants
associated with construction has the potential to have a cumulative impact on
the water quality of receiving waters, which eventually flow to the Truckee
River. As noted above, the Truckee River is listed as impaired for sediment.
Any addition of sediment could have a significant cumulative effect. Howev-
er, as described in the Project Impacts section above, the project applicant
would minimize the project impacts by complying with the applicable water
quality regulations including preparing and implementing a SWPPP; comply-
ing with the Town’s Municipal Code requirements; and installing BMPs and
practicing water quality protection measures to manage and reduce erosion,
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.9-25
stormwater runoff, and sedimentation downstream. Creation of impervious
surfaces across the project site may result in greater surface runoff rates and
peak volumes; however, as discussed above and illustrated in the drainage
plan, runoff would be captured and detained through use of vegetated swales
and retention basins to minimize any potential on- or off-site flooding im-
pacts that may result from construction activities. In the long term, imple-
mentation of the proposed project could result in long-term impacts related to
water quality, and flooding from increased impervious areas. Addition of
impervious surfaces from the proposed project could reduce infiltration and
increase storm runoff flows. The cumulative increase in impervious surfaces
could cause a substantial increase in runoff, which if not controlled could re-
sult in a significant flooding effect downstream. However, the proposed pro-
ject would be required to comply with the stormwater flow and water quality
performance standards listed in the MS4 permit (e.g. runoff rates from the
project would be similar to pre-development rates and minimize stormwater
pollutant to MEP), such that the long-term impact would be less-than-
significant. Given the regulatory and permitting requirements that the pro-
posed project would need to comply with, the project is unlikely to substan-
tially contribute toward long-term flooding and cumulative water quality
impacts. Therefore, this impact is less than significant.
G. Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact HYDRO-1: The proposed project would involve grading, excava-
tion, and potential cut and fill activity. Ground disturbance associated with
construction activities has the potential to cause erosion of exposed surfaces
during rainfall events and snowmelt. Runoff has the potential to cause sedi-
mentation of on-site and off-site watercourses.
Mitigation Measures HYDRO-1a: Prior to approval of improvement
plans, a grading plan shall be prepared for the project site that contains
the following provisions:
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.9-26
¤ Identify areas where topsoil is to be salvaged prior to grading for later
reuse on-site.
¤ Identify and protect areas not planned to be disturbed to the greatest
extent practicable using temporary fencing or other methods.
¤ Limit cuts and fills and balance cut and fill on-site.
¤ Limit grading to the smallest practical area of land.
¤ Limit exposure of disturbed soils to the shortest practical amount of
time. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit requires that disturbed soils are temporarily stabi-
lized within 14 days of disturbance.
¤ Establish a winterization plan such that all disturbed soil areas are sta-
bilized by October 15th of each construction year (per NPDES re-
quirements).
¤ Permanently stabilize graded/disturbed areas through soil loosening,
application of salvaged topsoil, establishment of native vegetation and
application of native mulch material. The State Water Resources Con-
trol Board (SWRCB), “Sediment Source Control Handbook” provides
field-tested guidelines for revegetating and permanently stabilizing dis-
turbed soil areas in the Tahoe-Truckee area.
¤ Create grading contours that blend with the natural contours on-site
or with contours on property immediately adjacent to the area of de-
velopment.
¤ Locate and design roadways, parking areas, trails, and paths to blend
in with the natural terrain.
¤ Limit development on steep slopes in order to minimize erosion.
Mitigation Measures HYDRO-1b: Best Management Practices (BMPs)
shall be applied during construction to minimize erosion and sedimenta-
tion. A stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) shall be pre-
pared and submitted prior to ground disturbing activities that specifies
what specific measures will be implemented to protect water quality and
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.9-27
minimize erosion during construction. BMPs selected shall be in accord-
ance with the California Stormwater Quality Association “Stormwater
Best Management Practice Handbook” and the Lahontan Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB) “Project Guidelines for Erosion Con-
trol.” These guidelines include the following temporary construction
BMPs:
¤ Surplus or waste materials shall not be placed in drainage ways or
within the 100-year flood plain of surface waters.
¤ All loose piles of soil, silt, clay, sand, debris, or earthen materials shall
be protected in a reasonable manner to prevent discharge of pollutants
to waters of the State. Material stockpiles should be placed on the up-
gradient side of excavation whenever possible. Stockpiles should be
covered prior to forecasted rain events and sediment barriers should be
installed around stockpiles at all times.
¤ Dewatering shall be done in a manner so as to prevent the discharge of
pollutants, including earthen materials, from the site. The first option
is to discharge dewatering waste to land. A separate permit may be
required if, due to site constraints, dewatering waste must be dis-
charged to surface waters. Contact the Regional Board for infor-
mation on discharging to surface waters.
¤ All disturbed areas shall be temporarily or permanently stabilized by
October 15 of each year.
¤ Any soil-disturbing work that is allowed to be performed (which re-
quires a variance) between October 15 and May 1 of each year shall be
conducted in such a manner that the project can be winterized within
48 hours. Winterized means implementing erosion and/or sediment
controls that would prevent the discharge of earthen materials from
the site and the controls would remain effective throughout the
rainy/snow season without requiring maintenance. In general, this
requires stabilizing bare disturbed soils with mulch, erosion protection
blankets, or other suitable materials, and installing perimeter sediment
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.9-28
controls such as fiber logs or other similar materials that would remain
effective during significant rain and snow events.
¤ After completion of a construction project, all surplus or waste earth-
en material shall be removed from the site and deposited at a legal
point of disposal.
¤ All non-construction areas (areas outside of the construction zone that
would remain undisturbed) shall be protected by fencing or other
means to prevent necessary encroachment outside the active construc-
tion zone.
¤ During construction, temporary erosion control measures (e.g. im-
permeable dikes, silt fences, wattles, etc.) shall be used as necessary to
prevent discharge of earthen materials from the site during periods of
precipitation or runoff.
¤ Control of run-on water from off-site areas shall be managed (protect-
ed, diverted, treated, etc.) to prevent such water from encountering
pollutants before it is discharged from the site.
¤ Where construction activities involve the crossing and/or alteration of
a stream channel, such activities require a prior written agreement
with the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and shall
be timed whenever possible to occur during the period in which
stream flow is expected to be lowest for the year. Other control
measures may be necessary to prevent adverse effects from work in or
near surface waters.
¤ Revegetated areas shall be regularly and continually maintained in or-
der to assure adequate vegetation growth and root development,
mulch surface cover, and absence of any signs of erosion (rills, gullies,
deposition). Revegetated areas shall be routinely inspected and main-
tained as necessary to ensure continued erosion control effectiveness.
The Sediment Source Control Handbook, a Sierra Business Council
publication in collaboration with the Lahontan Regional Water Quali-
ty Control Board, provides field-tested guidelines for revegetating and
permanently stabilizing disturbed soil areas in the Tahoe-Truckee area.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.9-29
Mitigation Measure HYDRO-1c: Additional requirements for Truckee
River hydrologic area:
¤ Except in the event of emergencies, land disturbance associated with
project construction is prohibited between October 15th and May 1st of
the following year. Exemptions may be granted by the Lahontan Ex-
ecutive Officer on a case-by-case basis.
¤ The project’s SWPPP and erosion control plan shall specify what spe-
cific measures will be implemented to protect water quality and min-
imize erosion during construction per NPDES permit requirements
and Town standards. The plan shall address storm drainage during
construction and propose site-specific BMPs to prevent erosion and
water quality degradation. All drainage and infiltration facilities shall
be constructed to Town specifications. The plan shall also specify res-
toration measures for graded areas including but not limited to land-
scaping, revegetation, or other soil stabilization methods shown to be
effective in the Truckee-Tahoe area.
¤ Low Impact Development (LID) techniques should be utilized during
and after construction. On-site infiltration should be utilized wherev-
er possible to minimize runoff. Such infiltration features may include
wet ponds, detention ponds, infiltration swales, and/or rain gardens
between the road surfaces and other paved areas. Roof downspouts
should be directed towards on-site infiltration areas away from the
building foundations.
¤ Earthen drainage facilities should be protected immediately following
construction using rock riprap, erosion control fabric or other energy
dissipation measures to prevent erosion of the soil surface. In addi-
tion, cut slopes and drainage ways should be protected from direct ex-
posure to water runoff immediately following grading activities.
¤ Cut and fill embankment slopes shall be protected from sheet, rill, and
gully erosion and shall not exceed 2:1, horizontal to vertical. Run-on
areas should be identified and managed as necessary to prevent concen-
trated flow from eroding cut and fill slopes.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.9-30
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
Impact HYDRO-2: Following project construction, creation of impervious
surfaces (roads, houses) and slight changes of local topography has the poten-
tial to alter surface runoff rates and drainage patterns from the site and in-
crease surface runoff rates, peak flows, and sediment transport downstream.
Urban runoff from roadways, driveways, and parking lots may carry metals
and petroleum-based contaminants to waterways.
Mitigation Measures HYDRO-2a: Prior to approval of improvement
plans, a grading plan shall be prepared for the project site that contains
the following provisions:
¤ Limit grading to the smallest practical area of land.
¤ Locate and design roadways, parking areas, trails, and paths to blend
in with the natural terrain.
¤ Limit development on steep slopes in order to minimize erosion.
¤ Create grading contours that blend with the natural contours on-site
or with contours on property immediately adjacent to the area of de-
velopment.
¤ Permanently stabilize graded/disturbed areas through soil loosening,
application of salvaged topsoil, establishment of native vegetation and
application of native mulch material. The Water Board’s “Sediment
Source Control Handbook” provides field-tested guidelines for revege-
tating and permanently stabilizing disturbed soil areas in the Tahoe-
Truckee area.
Mitigation Measures HYDRO-2b: The following permanent BMPs shall
be applied during construction to minimize alteration of surface runoff
rates and prevent associated water quality and flooding impacts:
¤ Low Impact Development (LID) techniques shall be utilized during
and after construction. On-site infiltration should be utilized wherev-
er possible to minimize runoff. Such infiltration features may include
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.9-31
wet ponds, detention ponds, infiltration swales, and/or rain gardens
between the road surfaces and other paved areas. Roof downspouts
should be directed towards on-site infiltration areas away from the
building foundations. Other control measures may be considered if
site constraints are such that construction of infiltration features is not
feasible. Additional specific design specifications are required by
Lahontan RWQCB for the Truckee River Hydrologic Area (see spe-
cific requirements below).
¤ Where possible, existing drainage patterns should not be significantly
modified.
¤ Drainage swales should be stabilized with rock, riprap, erosion control
fabric, and/or vegetation as appropriate to prevent erosion and scour-
ing.
¤ Revegetated areas should be regularly and continually maintained in
order to assure adequate vegetation growth and root development,
mulch surface cover, and absence of any signs of erosion (rills, gullies,
deposition). Revegetated areas shall be routinely inspected and main-
tained as necessary to ensure continued erosion control effectiveness.
The Water Board’s “Sediment Source Control Handbook” provides
field-tested guidelines for revegetating and permanently stabilizing dis-
turbed soil areas in the Tahoe-Truckee area.
Mitigation Measure HYDO-2c: Additional requirements for Truckee
River hydrologic area:
¤ Runoff from impervious surfaces shall be treated or contained on-site.
For purposes of this requirement, the volume of water to be contained
or treated is the 20-year, 1-hour storm, which is equal to 0.7 inches of
rain.
¤ Design, construction, and maintenance techniques should ensure de-
velopment near a creek would not cause or worsen natural hazards
(such as erosion, sedimentation, flooding, or pollution) and would in-
clude appropriate erosion and sediment control practices such as: (1)
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.9-32
turbidity screens and other management practices, which shall be used
as necessary to minimize siltation, sedimentation, and erosion, and
shall be left in place until disturbed areas are stabilized with permanent
vegetation that would prevent the transport of sediment off-site; and
(2) temporary vegetation and/or mulch cover sufficient to stabilize
disturbed areas.
¤ Post-project stormwater flows shall equal pre-project stormwater
flows for the design year event.
¤ Prior to initiation of construction, the project proponent shall demon-
strate that the post-development design storm hydrograph leaving the
project is not changed from pre-project conditions such that down-
stream drainage structures (culverts, bridges, etc.) remain adequate
post-development. To this end, soil infiltration rates, stormwater
pond capacities and detention times, and other suggested revisions
from the 2007 technical review by Geocon shall be incorporated into
the construction plans so that Lahontan RWQCB and the Town can
fully evaluate the feasibility of the proposed drainage design.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
4.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING
4.10-1
This section addresses the subject of land use with respect to the proposed
Canyon Springs Subdivision Project (project or proposed project). The Cali-
fornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires an analysis of consisten-
cy with plans and policies as part of the environmental setting (State CEQA
Guidelines, Section 15125). An EIR uses the policy analysis as an indicator of
the resources that might be affected by a project and considers the importance
a policy gives a resource in determining the significance of the physical im-
pact. Conversely, the EIR considers the potential significance of the related
physical impacts when analyzing a particular policy. Inconsistency with a
policy may indicate a significant physical impact, but the inconsistency is not
itself an impact. The physical impacts of the project are analyzed in other
sections of this Draft EIR.
This section identifies the plans of the agencies with jurisdiction over the pro-
ject site and provides a brief description of each agency and the purpose of
each plan. This section also provides a detailed project consistency discussion
of the applicable policies of the Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan (General
Plan) and the regulations of the Town of Truckee Municipal Code Title 18
(Development Code), as well as the applicable policies of the 1996 Nevada
County General Plan1 and the Nevada County Zoning Regulations for the
portions of the project outside of the Truckee Town Limit. However, discus-
sions for project policy consistency with the plans of agencies with jurisdic-
tion of the project site related to Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions,
Hydrology and Water Quality, Public Services (Fire Protection Services and
Recreation), and Transportation and Traffic are provided in Sections 4.3, 4.7,
4.9, 4.13, and 4.14 of this Draft EIR, respectively. To the degree that policies
over these plans overlap with those identified in this section, the consistency
finding is summarized in this section and cross referenced accordingly.
1 The Nevada County General Plan was approved by the Nevada County
Board of Supervisors in 1996 and subsequently amended in 2008 (Safety) and 2010
(Circulation/Housing).
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
LAND USE AND PLANNING
4.10-2
A. Regulatory Framework
1. Federal Laws and Regulations
There are no specific federal regulations applicable to land use and planning.
2. State Laws and Regulations
a. Nevada County Local Agency Formation Commission
The Legislature has charged the Local Agency Formation Commission
(LAFCo) with carrying out changes in governmental organization to pro-
mote specified legislative policies now codified in the Cortese-Knox-
Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000. The Cortese-
Knox-Hertzberg Act commences with Section 56000 of the Government
Code, and the reader is referred especially to Section 56001, 56300, 56301,
56375, 56377, and 56668. These sections contain the following major policy
elements:
1. Orderly Growth. LAFCo is charged with encouraging orderly growth
and development. Providing housing for persons and families of all in-
comes is an important factor in promoting orderly development.
2. Logical Boundaries. LAFCo is responsible for encouraging the logical
formation and determination of boundaries.
3. Efficient Services. LAFCo must exercise its authority to ensure that af-
fected populations receive adequate, efficient, and effective governmental
services.
4. Preserve Agricultural and Open Spaces. LAFCo is required to exercise
its authority to guide development away from open space and prime agri-
cultural land uses unless such actions would not promote planned, order-
ly, and efficient development.
The project application includes a request to annex the project site into the
Truckee-Donner Public Utilities District (TDPUD). The proposed boundary
change will require approval from Nevada County Local Agency Formation
Commission (LAFCo).
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
LAND USE AND PLANNING
4.10-3
b. Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region
The primary responsibility for the protection of water quality in California
rests with the State Water Resources Control Board and nine Regional Water
Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). The project is under the jurisdiction of
the Lahontan RWQCB, which has developed a Water Quality Control Plan
for the Lahontan Region (Basin Plan). The project would be required to con-
form to the policies and guidelines concerning land development in the
Truckee River Hydrologic Unit and is subject to the requirements of the Ba-
sin Plan. Project consistency with the applicable polices set forth in the Basin
Plan is discussed in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Draft
EIR.
c. Quimby Act
The Quimby Act of 1965 is a State law that allows local legislative bodies to
adopt requirements for the dedication of land for parks or recreational pur-
poses, payments of fees in-lieu-of land dedication, or a combination of both,
as a condition of approval for a subdivision. The requirements must be
adopted by ordinance, with definite standards for determining the amount of
land dedicated, or fees paid, and the requirement must have a reasonable rela-
tionship (nexus) to the use of the facilities by the future inhabitants of the
subdivision. In order to meet conditions required for application of the
Quimby Act, the Town included the General Plan Conservation and Open
Space Element Policy COS-P8.1, which requires land or in-lieu fees for parks
to be provided by new development at a minimum ratio of 5 acres per thou-
sand population, to conform with standards established by Town Ordinance
96-04 (Quimby Fees). Project consistency with the applicable polices set
forth in the Quimby Act is discussed in Section 4.13, Public Services and Rec-
reation, of this Draft EIR.
d. Caltrans District 3 Transportation Corridor Concept Report, Interstate
Route 80
The Interstate 80 Transportation Corridor Concept Report (TCCR) is Cal-
trans long range (20-year) planning document for Interstate 80. Caltrans
owns, operates, and maintains Interstate 80, which provides the primary ac-
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
LAND USE AND PLANNING
4.10-4
cess to the Truckee region, including the project site via Interstate 80 Seg-
ments 14 and 15. The TCCR identifies the existing route conditions and fu-
ture needs for these Interstate 80 segments. Segment 14 is a four to six-lane
freeway running 4.7 miles from Donner Pass Road to Airport Road, and
Segment 15 is a four-lane freeway that begins at Airport Road in east Truckee
and ends 11.2 miles to the northeast at the Nevada County/Sierra County
Line. The most important information included within the Interstate-80
TCCR is the Level of Service (LOS) standards, Concept and Ultimate Facili-
ties, and a list of Programmed, Planned, and Needed Projects. The project’s
consistency with the Interstate 80 TCCR is discussed in Section 4.14, Trans-
portation and Traffic, of this Draft EIR.
3. Local Regulations and Policies
a. The Nevada County Fire Plan
The Nevada County Fire Plan (NCFP) was prepared to reduce the risk from
wildland fires to life, property, and natural resources in Nevada County and
to comply with the Disaster Management Act of 2000 and the Healthy Forest
Restoration Act of 2003.2 The NCFP includes an extensive series of recom-
mendations for the Nevada County Board of Supervisors aimed at reducing
wildland fire risk in Nevada County, including fuel management and defensi-
ble space enforcement strategies, public education, infrastructure improve-
ments to increase fire-fighting capacity, and coordination with local fire agen-
cies to ensure consistent and effective wildland fire mitigation efforts. Project
consistency with the applicable polices set forth in the Fire Management Plan
is discussed in Section 4.13, Public Services, of this Draft EIR.
b. Town of Truckee Particulate Matter Air Quality Management Plan
Nevada County, along with Plumas and Sierra Counties, is situated within
the Mountain Counties Air Basin, which is managed by the Northern Sierra
Air Quality Management District (NSAQMD). NSAQMD serves to enforce
2 The Nevada County Fire Plan: A framework for reducing threats to public
safety and reducing costs and losses as a result of wildfire in Nevada County by the
Fire Plan Committee (FPC) for the Nevada County Board of Supervisors, August
2004.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
LAND USE AND PLANNING
4.10-5
federal, State, and local air quality regulations to ensure that Ambient Air
Quality Standards, which are air quality standards set at levels that will pro-
tect the public health, are met. The Town of Truckee and the NSAQMD
have developed the Particulate Matter Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP)
for Truckee as of July 15, 1999 to provide a means to address increased Par-
ticulate Matter (PM) emissions. Of special concern are particles that measure
less than 10 microns in diameter (about 1/7 the thickness of a human hair)
and less than 2.5 microns in diameter (about 1/20 the thickness of human
hair), known as respirable particulate matter (PM10) and (PM2.5), respectively.
Both PM10 and PM2.5 can be inhaled and lodge in the lungs. Project consisten-
cy with the applicable polices set forth in the AQMP is discussed in Section
4.3, Air Quality, of this Draft EIR.
c. Nevada County Regional Transportation Plan
The Nevada County Transportation Commission (NCTC) is the designated
Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) for Nevada County creat-
ed pursuant to Title 7.88 of the State of California Government Code, Section
67920. As the RTPA for Nevada County, the NCTC coordinates transporta-
tion planning for Grass Valley, Nevada City, Nevada County, and the Town
of Truckee.3 The NCTC acts as an autonomous agency in filling the man-
dates of the Transportation Development Act (discussed above).
As the RTPA for Nevada County, California State law requires the NCTC to
prepare, adopt, and submit an updated Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)
every five-years. The 2010 update of the Nevada County RTP reflects the
latest project funding and planning assumptions, and preliminarily addresses
the new requirements of Assembly Bill 32 (California Global Warming Solu-
tions Act of 2006) regulating greenhouse gas emissions associated with con-
struction of improvements identified in the RTP. The RTP Policy Element
identifies transportation goals and policies which meet the needs of the region
and reflect the consideration of environmental, social, and economic goals.
3 Nevada County Transportation Commission Website, retrieved August 5, 2011
from http://www.nctc.ca.gov/About-NCTC/index.html.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
LAND USE AND PLANNING
4.10-6
Project consistency with the applicable polices set forth in the RTP is dis-
cussed in Section 4.14, Transportation and Traffic, of this Draft EIR.
d. Truckee Donner Recreation and Park District Master Plan
The Truckee Donner Recreation and Park District (TDRPD) adopted a ten-
year Truckee Donner Recreation and Park District Master Plan (TDRPD Master
Plan) for the community in 1991 formulated to “facilitate the establishment
of a balanced park, recreation and open space system.” The TDRPD Master
Plan specifies a series of standards and goals for various types of parkland.
Project consistency with the applicable polices set forth in the TDRPD Mas-
ter Plan is discussed in Section 4.13, Public Services and Recreation, of this
Draft EIR.
e. Town of Truckee Trails & Bikeways Master Plan (May 2007)
The Town’s Trails & Bikeways Master Plan (TBMP) was adopted on April 4,
2002 (Council Resolution No. 2002-17) and amended on May 17, 2007
(Council Resolution No. 2007-20). The TBMP is intended to supplement and
implement the broader TDRPD Master Plan by providing the more-detailed
analysis necessary for development of a town-wide trail and bikeway system
designed to increase recreational, educational, and alternative transportation
opportunities for the benefit of local residents and visitors to the Truckee
area. The goals and policies of the TBMP provide guidance for the planning,
development, and management for the type, design, and general location of
trail corridors within the Town. Project consistency with the applicable po-
lices set forth in TBMP are discussed in Section 4.13, Public Services and Rec-
reation, and Section 4.14, Transportation and Traffic, of this Draft EIR.
f. Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan
The Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan (General Plan) was adopted Novem-
ber 16, 2006, and serves as the guiding policy document for the Town of
Truckee. The General Plan, shown on Figure 3-2, designates the project site
as RC/OS (Resource Conservation/Open Space) and RES (Residential) 0.5 to
1 dwelling unit per acre (du/acre). The project site is also within the Overlay
Area 6 designation as shown on General Plan Figure LU-2, which requires a
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
LAND USE AND PLANNING
4.10-7
planned development that links access, open space areas, and infrastructure
between the properties to be adopted prior to the approval of any tentative
map.
i. Resource Conservation/Open Space (RC/OS)
The Resource Conservation/Open Space (RC/OS) designation is intended to
preserve large open space areas in Truckee. The RC/OS designation is ap-
plied to areas containing significant natural resources such as forest land,
rangeland, mineral resources and open space uses such as bikeways, trails, and
access to the Truckee River and other public areas; and to lands with envi-
ronmentally-sensitive features such as important wildlife habitat, wildlife
movement corridors, and significant vistas.
Land Uses Allowed: Land uses allowed under the RC/OS designation are rec-
reational uses that are compatible with the natural surroundings, such as ski-
ing, camping, existing and currently approved golf courses, horseback riding,
and clustered residential or lodging uses.
Density and Intensity: Any proposed development in this land use designa-
tion, including residential, non-residential, and recreational facilities such as
campgrounds, resort ranches, etc., shall preserve 90 percent of the land area
on the subject parcels as open space. Acceptable uses in such open space areas
include those that do not involve structures or large paved areas, such as
primitive campgrounds without facilities, picnic areas, trails, equestrian cor-
rals, and other non-enclosed structures. The open space area requirement
may be reduced below 90 percent if the proposed development substantially
furthers other General Plan goals, policies, and/or implementing actions.
Residential uses are allowed at an average density of one housing unit per
10 acres. Residential uses are required to be clustered in small defined areas so
as to preserve open space.
Non-residential uses found to be compatible with maintaining open space
values and residential uses are also permitted within this designation. An av-
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
LAND USE AND PLANNING
4.10-8
erage Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.2 applies to non-open space lands. If non-
residential land uses are developed in association with residential develop-
ment, the total number of permitted residential units is to be reduced by a
ratio of one unit per 8,712 square feet of non-residential development. This
requirement does not apply in cases where the proposed residential units
promote mixed-use development goals, or provide affordable or workforce
housing.
Zoning districts to implement this category accommodate lots smaller than 5
or 10 acres to allow for clustered development in areas closest to existing de-
veloped areas and to implement clustering concepts for future subdivisions on
larger lots.
ii. Residential (RES)
This land use designation applies to areas of existing residential land uses and
to areas which, based on their proximity to existing residential areas, are de-
termined appropriate for new clustered residential development.
Land Uses Allowed: Land uses allowed in this designation include all residen-
tial uses, including home occupations. Neighborhood-serving commercial
uses are also allowed in this designation when it is found that adequate roads
and other infrastructure are available to serve all uses, subject to the require-
ments specified in Land Use Policy P5.2. Appropriate locations for neigh-
borhood commercial include street corners, larger subdivisions such as Glen-
shire and Tahoe Donner, and higher density residential areas.
Density and Intensity: Residential uses are allowed at densities ranging from
0.5 to 6 du/acre. For developed areas, the density applied to new infill devel-
opment takes place at densities reflecting those of the existing surrounding
development. For undeveloped areas, densities range from 0.5 to 6 du/acre.
A minimum density of 50 percent of the maximum density identified in the
Land Use Map must be achieved in all new development in the RES designa-
tion unless such development would conflict with other General Plan goals
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
LAND USE AND PLANNING
4.10-9
and policies. As an example of the application of this standard, the minimum
allowed development density in areas designated RES-4 would be 2 du/ac.
Density bonuses may also be applied to development in this designation for
projects providing affordable and senior housing, as specified in the Devel-
opment Code. Except for health or safety reasons, secondary units are per-
mitted by right within this designation; such units will not be counted against
the total allowed development density.
Zoning districts to implement this designation accommodate a range of densi-
ties based on environmental constraints; existing development patterns; the
need to accommodate duplexes and multi-family housing in appropriate loca-
tions; including infill sites; and the potential for new clustered subdivisions on
larger undeveloped lots. Home occupations are also accommodated.
iii. Overlay Area 6
The General Plan identifies the Overlay Area 6 land use designation as the
area between Glenshire and the eastern Town limit. This area includes the
entire project site with the exception of the 5-acre strip of land running
north/south connected to the northern edge of the Town limit boundary in
unincorporated Nevada County. Land Use Policy OA6-P1 requires a
planned development to be adopted for all properties located in Overlay Area
6 before any tentative map or subdivision may be approved on any of the
properties. Under Overlay Area Policy OA6-P1, the planned development is
required link access, open space areas, and infrastructure between the proper-
ties to ensure that subdivision and development of the properties takes place
in a coordinated manner.
iv. General Plan Goals and Policies
The General Plan is a comprehensive, long range declaration of guiding prin-
ciples, goals, policies, and actions for the development of the Town of Truck-
ee. The General Plan is a dynamic document consisting of eight elements,
including: 1) Land Use, 2) Community Character; 3) Circulation, 4) Hous-
ing; 5) Economic Development, 6) Conservation and Open Space, 7) Noise,
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
LAND USE AND PLANNING
4.10-10
and 8) Safety. Elements of the General Plan establish policies to guide devel-
opment and conservation in Truckee through 2025.
The General Plan goals and policies that apply to the proposed project are
identified in Table 4.10-1, below. Consistency findings are generally based on
the EIR analyst’s review of information provided by the applicant in the pro-
ject description. Consistency and enforcement of the project elements would
be required by the Town through conditions of approval associated with the
Tentative Map Approval. Note that General Plan policies not included were
determined to have negligible or no relationship to the proposed project or
surrounding area, including policies that are either site specific, project specif-
ic, use specific, or relate to issues outside the scope of the CEQA analysis.
g. Town Of Truckee Development Code
The Town of Truckee Municipal Code, Title 18 Development Code, imple-
ments the Truckee General Plan policies by classifying and regulating the uses
of land and structures within the Town. The Development Code serves to
protect and to promote the public health, safety, comfort, convenience, pros-
perity, and general welfare of residents and businesses in the Town.
The Development Code divides land within the Town into zoning districts
that are consistent with the General Plan. Chapters 18.08 through 18.20 de-
termine which land uses are allowed in each zoning district established by
Section 18.06.020 (Zoning Districts Established); what land use permit is re-
quired to establish each use, and the basic development standards that apply
to allowed land uses in each zoning district.
As shown on Figure 3-3, 213 acres of the project site is zoned RS-1.0 (Single-
Family Residential, density of 1 du/acre)4 and 70.76 acres is zoned OS (Open
Space).
4 Town of Truckee Municipal Code, Title 18, Development Code, Chapter
18.03, Interpretation of Provisions, Section 18.03.020.C.1, adopted February 2, 2010.
Density is rounded down to the nearest whole number; 283.76 total site acres less
70.76 OS acres equals 213 acres zoned RS-1 allows for up to 213 lots.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
LAND USE AND PLANNING
4.10-11
TABLE 4.10-1 TOWN OF TRUCKEE 2025 GENERAL PLAN POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Goal/Policy Consistency Discussion
Land Use (LU)
OA6-P1 A planned development shall be adopted for all properties located in
Overlay Area 6 before any tentative map or subdivision may be ap-
proved on any of the properties. The planned development shall link
access, open space areas, and infrastructure between the properties to
ensure that subdivision and development of the properties takes place
in a coordinated manner.
Consistent: The project aims to integrate residential and recreation components
with surrounding residential developments on a site comprising informal trails,
native habitat, and wildlife resources. The residential lots would be located to
the north and south of the proposed public open space that would serve as a
wildlife corridor. Housing lots are designed to connect with the project’s 4.5-
mile publicly accessible trail system and surrounding open space while providing
setback buffers between future homes and sensitive environmental areas includ-
ing wetlands and ephemeral drainages. In addition, the proposed trail system and
open space would connect to existing trails and open space areas adjacent to the
project site.
Goal LU 1: Manage growth so as to maintain the unique qualities and character of the Town as a small mountain community.
LU-P1.1 All new development shall meet important community goals for design
quality, open space preservation, and promotion of a livable, sustaina-
ble community. Development that does not fulfill these goals shall not
be allowed.
Consistent: The proposed project includes 176.17 acres of public open space,
which exceeds the 50 percent minimum required by Town standard by 69.67
acres or 65.4 percent. The public open space would be preserved as part of the
future Canyon Spring’s Home Owner’s Association-owned open space/common
area. The proposed Draft Design Guidelines developed by the applicant are in-
tended to establish a consistent and quality design theme.
Goal LU-2: Provide an adequate amount of land designated for residential, commercial, and industrial uses to meet demand within the life of the Plan.
LU-P2.3 Ensure that new residential development meets minimum density
standards, based on those described in Section C of the Land Use Ele-
ment.
Consistent: The gross density of the project is .5 units per acre, which conforms
to the RES (Residential) 0.5 to 1 du/acre. As described in the General Plan on
page 2-8, the stated density standards or residential uses do not include secondary
units, which are allowed as a matter of right in the Single-Family Residential (RS)
zoning district, subject to Zoning Clearance approval and provided certain size,
setback, and design conditions are met.
Goal LU-4: Coordinate land development with provision of services and infrastructure.
LU-P4.1 Work with all special districts, including the Tahoe-Truckee Unified
School District, to ensure that development within the Town is coor-
dinated with provision of services.
Consistent: As discussed in Section 4.13, Public Services and Recreation, and
4.15, Utilities and Service Systems of this Draft EIR, the project would not result
in significant impacts to public services and facilities, including police and fire
services, schools, parks, libraries, and water, sewer, and solid waste facilities.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
LAND USE AND PLANNING
TABLE 4.10-1 TOWN OF TRUCKEE 2025 GENERAL PLAN POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)
4.10-12
Goal/Policy Consistency Discussion
LU-P4.2 Cooperate with special districts to plan for and identify suitable future
sites for needed facilities, including schools, fire stations, solid and liq-
uid waste disposal sites, and utilities infrastructure, so that the local
population can be safely and efficiently served, while minimizing po-
tential environmental impacts.
Consistent: As discussed in Section 4.15, Utilities and Service Systems, new off-
site water infrastructure would be required. No other new or modified facilities
would be required as a result of the project development. See LU-P4.1.
LU-P4.3 Approve rezoning and development permits only when adequate ser-
vices are available, or when a program to provide services has been
approved by the applicable District and the Town of Truckee. Stand-
ards of services for new development applicable to this policy are
shown in Table LU-6.
Require that sewer be provided for all new residential subdivisions
creating more than four lots, and all new commercial and industrial
uses. Existing legal lots and new subdivisions of four or fewer lots in
areas currently without sewer may be developed with residential uses
using septic systems with the approval of the appropriate health and
environmental agencies.
Such lots may be required to establish connections to the sewer system
if they are located in close proximity to existing or future sewer lines.
Consistent: See LU-P4.1 and LU-P4-2.
LU-P4.4 Review all development proposals to ensure that demand generated for
police services can be adequately met; periodically evaluate current
funding mechanisms for police services to determine if they are ade-
quate, and consider revisions as necessary.
Consistent: As discussed in Section 4.13, Public Services and Recreation, of this
Draft EIR, the project would not result in significant impacts to police services.
LU-P4.5 Require new infrastructure and development to be designed and built
to manage stormwater runoff and to minimize or eliminate harmful
impacts to property prone to flooding, water quality, and riparian,
wetland, and meadow habitats. When infrastructure is replaced or
retrofitted, require the upgrading of stormwater management systems
to minimize or eliminate these impacts.
Consistent: Consistent with Town of Truckee Municipal Code Section
18.30.040.A.2.a, all proposed building envelopes are outside of the required 50-
foot setback from designated 100-year floodplains for the two blue line water-
ways on the project site. As discussed in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water
Quality, of this Draft EIR, the project impacts to hydrology and water quality
would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures and
project design features.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
LAND USE AND PLANNING
TABLE 4.10-1 TOWN OF TRUCKEE 2025 GENERAL PLAN POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)
4.10-13
Goal/Policy Consistency Discussion
Goal LU-5: Encourage a mix of land uses in the Town to promote a vibrant community and to reduce traffic, while addressing the need to minimize land use conflicts.
LU-P5.3 Support development of neighborhood centers through establishment
of uses and facilities that provide a direct benefit to the neighborhood,
such as educational and recreation facilities, day care services, places of
worship, community meeting centers, fire stations, small parks, librar-
ies and other public facilities, telecenters, and neighborhood commer-
cial uses.
Consistent: The project includes a 24,015 square foot (sf) recreational area to be
centrally located within the project site that would be available for use by future
residents and the public. As shown on above Figure 3-5, the recreation area
would be centrally located and adjacent to the publicly accessible trail system.
The specific components of the recreational area would be determined at the
discretion of the new Canyon Springs Homeowners Association and would re-
quire a Conditional Use Permit from the Town. The recreational area could
include features such as a tot-lot, swing set, play structure, picnic shelter, pool,
and/or multi-use play court.
Goal LU-7: Encourage clustered residential development to create efficient development patterns, and to minimize environmental impacts and threats to public safety.
LU-P7.1 For all residential developments, require clustering where appropriate.
Clustered development as defined in this General Plan includes the
following considerations:
♦ Clustering of residential development will allow flexibility of site
design in responding to the natural features and resources of an indi-
vidual site.
♦ Clustering means that structures will be located on a site so that larg-
er areas are left as undeveloped open space.
♦ Undeveloped areas may either be preserved in private or public open
space, or may be a portion of an individual lot, with deed restrictions
prohibiting construction in that portion.
Consistent: The project comprises 283.76 acres within the Town limits and
5 acres within unincorporated Nevada County. The proposed 185 lots would be
developed on 107.59 acres of the 213 acres designated as RES and RS-1.0 and the
remaining 176.17 acres would be designated public open space and natural habitat
to be preserved in the future Canyon Springs Home Owner Association-owned
open space/common area. The open space would be left large contiguous areas
that would connect to open space on adjacent parcels. As illustrated on Figure 3-
5 in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Draft EIR, the proposed residential
lots would be clustered in two main areas to the north and south of the proposed
public open space, which would serve as a wildlife corridor. The proposed de-
velopment would be setback from sensitive environmental areas including wet-
lands and ephemeral drainages, and natural slopes exceeding 30 percent.
LU-P7.2 Residential development shall be clustered to avoid areas of significant
natural resources, including wildlife habitat and migration corridors
and visual resources.
Consistent: See LU-P7.1.
LU-P7.3 Clustered development types shall be applied within the Town accord-
ing to the location and character of the development site. Clustered
development types and their corresponding recommended locations are
summarized in Table LU-7.
Consistent: General Plan Table LU-7, Clustered Development Types and Appli-
cable Land Use Designations, describes Rural Suburban Clusters as groupings of
10 to 30 dwellings separated by connected open space areas or greenways on Res-
idential (0.5 to 1 units/acre) land use designations peripheral to Town core, but
generally not on sites within the rural fringe.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
LAND USE AND PLANNING
TABLE 4.10-1 TOWN OF TRUCKEE 2025 GENERAL PLAN POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)
4.10-14
Goal/Policy Consistency Discussion
The project includes 185 residential lots to be developed on land designated as
RES (Residential) 0.5 to 1 du/acre. While the project site abuts the Town Limit
to the east, residential development is present in the Town’s Sphere of Influence
to north, east, and south. The project would be developed in eight phases rang-
ing in 16 to 37 lot groupings per phase separated by a network of connected open
space areas and a 4.5-mile publicly accessible trail network comprising 2-foot-
wide soft-surface earthen trails and 12-foot-wide gravel trails. See LU-P2.3
LU-P7.4 Clustered development shall incorporate preservation of open space
areas as an integral and primary consideration in the overall develop-
ment plan for a site. Considerations in preserving open space through
clustering shall include the following:
♦ Maximizing preservation of open space types that reflect the Town’s
priorities as stated in the Conservation and Open Space Element.
♦ Maintaining an appropriate relationship of the site to the character
and context of adjacent neighborhood areas and nearby and adjoining
open space areas.
♦ Respecting individual site features and characteristics, including to-
pography, natural features, natural hazards and constraints, and the
presence of sensitive biological resources.
Consistent: Under the proposed project a total of 176.17 acres is included as
public open space, which exceeds the 50 percent minimum required by Town
standard. The public open space would be permanently reserved. Housing lots
are designed to connect with the 4.5-mile publicly accessible trail network and
surrounding open space while providing setback buffers between future homes
and sensitive environmental areas. Visual buffers from 100- to 300-feet are pro-
posed between the future homes and existing homes adjacent to the site. The
proposed residential lots would be sited under the existing tree canopy and
would not be developed on hillsides, prominent slope exposures, ridges, or bluff
lines, and would be outside of the Town-required 50-foot setback from designat-
ed 100-year floodplains. See LU-P2.3 and LU-P.7.3
LU-P7.5 Preserve the portions of parcels not developed with clustered residen-
tial used as undeveloped open space. Preservation and management
options for open space include:
♦ Dedication to a homeowners association.
♦ Dedication to a public agency such as the Parks District, or to a land
trust or other non-profit agency.
♦ Use of building envelopes in conjunction with conservation ease-
ments or deed restrictions.
Consistent: The project’s public open space would be preserved within the fu-
ture Canyon Springs Home Owner’s Association-owned open space/common
area. See LU-P7.3 and LU-P7.4. e
Goal LU-9: Support development patterns in the Planning Area that do not negatively impact the Town of Truckee, and that enhance the quality of life for residents of
Truckee and the wider region.
LU-P9.1 Support clustered development within the Planning Area. Consistent: See LU-P7.1, and LU-P7.3 through LU-P7.5.
LU-P9.6 Encourage any development within the Planning Area to promote Consistent: The project does not include any privacy gates and would provide a
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
LAND USE AND PLANNING
TABLE 4.10-1 TOWN OF TRUCKEE 2025 GENERAL PLAN POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)
4.10-15
Goal/Policy Consistency Discussion
inclusivity; the Town therefore opposes exclusive development type
such as gated communities within the Planning Area.
4.5-mile publicly accessible trail network that would connect to the existing trail
network in the project vicinity. See LU-P1.1 and LU-P5.3
LU-P9.7 Oppose development within the Planning Area that significantly im-
pacts the Town’s natural ecosystems and viewsheds.
Consistent: As discussed in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, and Section 4.4, Biological
Resources, the project’s impacts to aesthetics and biological resources would be
less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures and project
design features.
Community Character (CC)
Goal CC-1: Preserve open space in Truckee that contributes to the town’s scenic mountain community character.
CC-P1.1 Utilize the mechanisms and strategies identified in the Conservation
and Open Space Element of the General Plan as a tool to actively pro-
tect open space in Truckee, including that containing or contributing
to the town’s scenic mountain qualities.
Consistent: The General Plan identifies the ephemeral drainages, which include
wetlands that trend northeasterly through the northern, central, and southern
portions of the site as scenic resources on Figure CC-1, Scenic Resources. Under
the proposed project the total of 176.17 acres of dedicated public open space and
natural habitat includes these ephemeral drainages. The project’s proposed dedi-
cated public open space would exceed the 50 percent minimum required by
Town standard by 69.67 acres or 65.4 percent. The project’s proposed public
open space would be preserved within the future Canyon Springs Home Own-
er’s Association-owned open space/common area. In addition, the project would
include 4.5 miles of publicly accessible trails that would connect to existing trails
adjacent to the project site. The proposed residential lots would be sited under
the existing tree canopy and would not be developed on hillsides, prominent
slope exposures, ridges, or bluff lines, nor would the project obstruct any views
of these sites. As discussed in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, of this Draft EIR, project
impacts to scenic vistas, would be less than significant.
CC-P1.2 Ensure that all new development, occurring at all scales and densities,
maximizes the provision of all types of open space, including scenic
open space that contributes to and enhances the town’s community
character.
Consistent: The project’s proposed dedicated public open space would exceed
the 50% minimum required by Town standard by 69.67 acres or 65.4%. See CC-
P1.1.
CC-P1.3 Cluster new development so as to preserve the maximum amount of
desired types of open space, as identified in the Conservation and Open
Space Element.
Consistent: See LU-P7.1 and LU-P7.3 through LU-P7.5, and COS-P1.5, COS-
P4.2.
CC-P1.4 Create a connected network of open spaces in Truckee that is accessible Consistent: The project would include 4.5 miles of publicly accessible trails that
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
LAND USE AND PLANNING
TABLE 4.10-1 TOWN OF TRUCKEE 2025 GENERAL PLAN POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)
4.10-16
Goal/Policy Consistency Discussion
to the community for outdoor recreation and other use and enjoyment,
as a key aspect of local community character.
would connect to existing trails adjacent to the project site. See Land Use Poli-
cies P7.1 and P7.3 through P7.5.
Goal CC-2: Preserve the natural beauty of Truckee, including the Town’s scenic resources, views and vistas, and the visual quality of the town’s steep slopes, ridge and
bluff lines and hillsides.
CC-P2.1 Protect views of hillsides, prominent slope exposures, and ridge and
bluff lines through a clustering requirement for residential development
that concentrates development on the most level and least visible por-
tions of hillside sites.
Consistent: Open views of the site from public open spaces are limited, as the
gently rolling terrain is largely covered with Jeffrey Pine Forest and Great Basin
Sage Scrub. Great Basin Sage Scrub is interspersed with and adjacent to Jeffrey
Pine Forest and montane meadow areas. This plant community is dominated by
shrubby vegetation such as bitterbrush, sagebrush, and rabbitbrush, with occa-
sional trees interspersed throughout. Large trees and hills obstruct views from
the site toward the north, east, and south; homes in the Glenshire subdivision 0.5
miles to the west are generally not visible from the site. Additionally, there is
limited visibility of the project site from Glenshire Drive, and views are ob-
structed from Martis Peak Drive, which runs to the northeast of the site. The
proposed residential lots would be sited under the existing tree canopy and
would not be developed on hillsides, prominent slope exposures, ridges, or bluff
lines; in addition, the project would not obstruct any views of these sites. As
discussed in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, of this Draft EIR, project impacts to scenic
vistas, would be less than significant.
CC-P2.3 Prohibit intensive and visually obtrusive development on prominent
hillsides, ridges, bluffs, and steep slope areas in Truckee.
Consistent: The proposed development would be limited to the slopes ranging
from 1 to 10 percent and would not occur on the isolated areas exceeding 30 per-
cent. Furthermore, the open views of the site from public open spaces are lim-
ited, as the gently rolling terrain is largely covered with mixed conifers and
woodland vegetation. See CC-P2.1.
CC-P2.4 Ensure that new development in Truckee’s lowland areas, including its
forested areas and meadowlands, and the Truckee River Valley, con-
tributes to and enhances the scenic quality and visual harmony of the
built environment that comprises the Truckee townscape.
Consistent: Implementation of the Draft Design Guidelines would ensure that
future development would meet this requirement. See LU-P1.1 and CC-P2.1.
CC-P2.5 Preserve the scenic qualities of the Truckee River and other natural
waterways through setback standards, as identified in the Conservation
and Open Space Element, and by ensuring that new development re-
spects and enhances the aesthetic qualities and natural environment of
these river corridors and waterways.
Consistent: See LU-P1.1, LU-P4.5, and CC-P1.1.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
LAND USE AND PLANNING
TABLE 4.10-1 TOWN OF TRUCKEE 2025 GENERAL PLAN POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)
4.10-17
Goal/Policy Consistency Discussion
CC-P2.7 Require electric, telecommunications and cable television facilities serv-
ing new development to be installed underground wherever possible.
Where undergrounding is impractical, above ground antennae and tele-
phone and high voltage transmission lines shall be located out of signif-
icant scenic vistas.
Consistent: As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, and Section 4.15,
Utilities and Service Systems, of this Draft EIR, the project would install all re-
quired electric, telecommunications, and cable television infrastructure under-
ground.
CC-P2.10 Encourage the preservation of trees and native vegetation, including
specimen trees, in development projects.
Consistent: While the project would require the removal of native vegetation,
including specimen trees (minimum 24-inch box) and snags, the project would
incorporate existing trees and vegetation into the project design. The project’s
proposed 176-acre public open space area includes native habitat and pebble
meadows. Further, the project includes replanting native vegetation on the ap-
proximately 7-acre portion of the project site that was the location of a previous
fire and planting to restore summer range in upland areas damaged by unauthor-
ized public uses of the property (e.g. off-road vehicle and motorcycles).
Goal CC-4: Protect views of the night sky and minimize the effects of light pollution.
P4.2 Require light fixtures to be designed and sited so as to minimize light
pollution, glare, and light trespass into adjoining properties.
Consistent: The project would be developed with the existing tree canopy. All
site and building lighting would be installed in conformance with the Town’s
Municipal Code, Title 18, Development Code, Chapter 18.30, General Property
and Use Standards, Section 18.30.060 (Exterior Lighting Lighting). Lighting
would be low level illumination and exterior lighting would be shielded (down-
ward facing) to minimize light spill, glare and reflection and maintain ‘dark
skies.’ See CC-P2.2 and CC-P2.4.
Goal CC-5: Maintain the town’s unique community character, including a high standard of town design in all development in Truckee.
CC-P5.1 Ensure that planning and development decisions are oriented towards
the maintenance of Truckee’s unique character, reflecting the following
considerations:
♦ Identification of specific types of centers, residential neighborhoods,
employment districts, corridors and gateways.
♦ Respect for the quality, character, and context of existing develop-
ment within these different areas of the town.
♦ Ensuring that new development enhances the desired character of
each of these areas.
Consistent: The proposed project is primarily surrounded by developed residen-
tial properties comprising full-time residents. These include large acreage proper-
ties located outside the Town Limit, but within Nevada County to the north,
east, and south — the Juniper Hills and Martis Peak residential subdivisions —
and suburban subdivisions within the Town limit to the west of the project site
collectively referred to as “Glenshire” including the Glenshire, Devonshire,
Cambridge Estates, Elkhorn Ridge, and The Meadows subdivisions. Implemen-
tation of the Draft Design Guidelines would ensure that future construction
would enhance the character of the area. In addition, the project would be orga-
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
LAND USE AND PLANNING
TABLE 4.10-1 TOWN OF TRUCKEE 2025 GENERAL PLAN POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)
4.10-18
Goal/Policy Consistency Discussion
♦ Discouraging new architecture that directly mimics or is derivative of
the buildings of the historic downtown.
♦ Encouraging the retrofit or rehabilitation of existing buildings to
more closely comply with Town policies, standards, and guidelines
for high quality architecture and design.
♦ Consideration of the relationship of the built environment to the
qualities and context of the landscape and natural environment in
which it is situated.
nized to meet the Rural Suburban Clusters standards. As described above under
LU-P7.3, the project would be developed under the existing tree canopy and
would permanently reserve the public open space and natural habitat. See LU-
P1.1, CC-P1.1, CC-P2.2, and CC-P2.4.
CC-P5.2 Require all new development to incorporate high quality site design,
architecture, and planning so as to enhance the overall quality of the
built environment in Truckee and create a visually interesting and aes-
thetically pleasing town environment.
Consistent: See LU-P1.1, LU-P7.3, and CC-P2.4.
CC-P5.5 Enhance physical connections between adjacent uses and between dif-
ferent parts of Truckee.
Consistent: The project would include open space and trails that connect to the
existing adjacent network. See LU-P7.3, LU-P7.4, and LU-P9.6, CC-P1.1, and
CC-P1.4
CC-P5.6 Regulate the size, quantity, location, and design of signs to maintain
and enhance the visual appearance of the town.
Consistent: As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Draft EIR,
the project would provide signage to both the vehicular and pedestrian viewers.
The project’s street and trail signage would comply with the Town of Truckee
Municipal Code, Title 18, Development Code, Chapter 18.56, Sign Design
Guidelines. The proposed signage would direct traffic, identify speed limits, and
provide street names, and trail access points, permitted trail uses and trail dis-
tance. In addition, trail signage would provide users with educational infor-
mation regarding the qualities of the natural characteristics of the project site –
both biological and ecological.
CC-P5.8 For all new development in Truckee, consider how the integration of
trees and native landscaping can contribute to the overall quality of
development-specific design and the town’s unique character.
Consistent: The project would incorporate existing trees and vegetation into the
project design, would reserve open space and natural habitat, and replant native
vegetation. See CC-P2.10.
CC-P5.9 Examine and pursue opportunities for planting trees and native land-
scaping in public spaces to help enhance and preserve the Town’s
unique character.
Consistent: The project includes replanting native vegetation on the approxi-
mately seven-acre portion of the project site that was the location of a previous
fire and planting to restore summer range. See CC-P5.8 and CC-P2.10.
Goal CC-10: Strengthen and enhance Truckee’s neighborhood centers, and create new centers where they do not exist today.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
LAND USE AND PLANNING
TABLE 4.10-1 TOWN OF TRUCKEE 2025 GENERAL PLAN POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)
4.10-19
Goal/Policy Consistency Discussion
CC-P10.2 Create new neighborhoods centers or focal points in neighborhoods
where they do not currently exist. Such centers may include small
commercial convenience centers like those found in Glenshire and Ta-
hoe Donner, or may be focused around non-commercial community-
serving uses such as those described in the sidebar opposite.
Consistent: The “Sidebar Text” identifies that non-commercial community serv-
ing uses include a range of elements that encourage congregation and community
interaction. They might include a tot lot or pocket park, community bulletin
board, newspaper stand, or improved landscaping and amenities such as benches
or a water fountain. The project includes a centrally located recreational area
that could be developed with a tot-lot, swing set, play structure, picnic shelter,
pool, and/or multi-use play court. See LU-P5.3
Goal CC-12: Enhance the character of Truckee’s rural residential neighborhoods.
CC-P12.1 Preserve the open space and natural features that contribute to the
character of rural residential neighborhoods through the clustered de-
velopment requirement and other strategies described in the Open
Space and Conservation Element.
Consistent: See LU-P7.1, LUP7.3 through LU-P7.5 and CC-P1.1 and CC-P2.4
CC-P12.2 Require new rural residential development projects to incorporate ma-
terials, color schemes and architectural styles that allow it to blend into
the landscape and rural and mountain environment and be less visible
from adjacent roadways. The use of rustic and natural material such as
stone and wood, and color palettes that reflect the natural environment
should be encouraged.
Consistent: The Draft Design Guidelines were prepared by the applicant with
the intent of establishing a consistent design theme and break-up the massing of
homes throughout the project site. In general, the Draft Design Guidelines iden-
tify that the primary colors of the project would blend with the native landscape
(e.g., soil, rock, trees) and individual house design would consider the natural
topography, sunlight exposure, and existing vegetation. Other on-site structures
such as fences and retaining walls, would be constructed of natural materials (e.g.,
stone, architectural steel, wood, timber) and would be left natural to weather or
treated and stained to match adjacent buildings. See LU-P1.1.
CC-P12.3 Create “soft” or feathered edges to rural residential neighborhoods that
transition into adjacent undeveloped open space areas. Soft edges pro-
vide a gradual spatial shift from the built to the natural environment at
the urban fringe (e.g. a home with formal landscaping close to the resi-
dence that shifts to a more "natural landscape" and ultimately to unde-
veloped areas beyond) rather than the "hard edge" or more abrupt tran-
sition created by buildings edges or walls.
Consistent: As shown on Figure 3-5 in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this
Draft EIR, the proposed housing lots would not form a “hard edge” or abrupt
transition between adjacent land uses, and would follow the contour on the
north and south edges of the proposed public open space corridor. The project
would provide visual buffers from 100- to 300-feet between the future homes and
existing homes adjacent to the site. The proposed residential lots would be sited
under the existing tree canopy and would not be developed on hillsides, promi-
nent slope exposures, ridges, or bluff lines. The Draft Design Guidelines were
designed to complement the natural topography, rolling meadows, and wooded
areas on the site; therefore, implementation of the guidelines would ensure indi-
vidual house design would consider the natural topography, sunlight exposure,
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
LAND USE AND PLANNING
TABLE 4.10-1 TOWN OF TRUCKEE 2025 GENERAL PLAN POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)
4.10-20
Goal/Policy Consistency Discussion
and existing vegetation. See LU-P7.1.
CC-P12.4 Provide sidewalks along at least one side of major roadways in Truck-
ee’s rural residential neighborhoods, except those of the most rural
character, where sidewalks should be minimized and pedestrian con-
nections enhanced instead through development of off-road trails.
Consistent: The project’s rural residential location precludes construction of
sidewalks; however, the proposed publicly accessible trail network with internal
and public access points would conform to this policy.
CC-P12.5 Retain an expansive open space and mountain landscape quality as the
dominant feature of Truckee’s rural residential neighborhoods.
Consistent: The project would include approximately 176 acres of public open
space and natural habitat, and would replant native vegetation. The proposed
residential lots would be sited under the existing tree canopy and would not be
developed on hillsides, prominent slope exposures, ridges, or bluff lines. See LU-
P7.1 and CC-P5.1.
Goal CC-18: Preserve and enhance the town’s historic and cultural resources.
CC-P18.1 Require evaluation of impacts to historic resources for projects which
involve substantial site disturbance, or demolition or alteration of
known historic buildings.
Consistent: While there are no historic buildings on the site, prehistoric archaeo-
logical sites P-29-2838/CA-NEV-1760 and P-29-2839/CA-NEV-1761 are consid-
ered historical resources for purposes of this project due to their ability to yield
information important in prehistory consistent with California Code of Regula-
tions Section 15064.5(c). As described in Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, of this
Draft EIR, a review of cultural resource studies prepared for the site in 1989,
2003 and 2007 was performed for this Draft EIR; a records search of the project
site was conducted on May 24, 2011 at the North Central Information Center of
the California Historical Resources Information System, Sacramento State Uni-
versity; a certified archaeologist performed a site visit on May 25, 2011 to identi-
fy the current conditions of prehistoric archaeological sites and update the find-
ings of prior studies; and, on June 1, 2011, a fossil locality search of the project
site and its surrounding 2-mile radius was performed to identify recorded paleon-
tological resources (fossils) within and near the project site. As discussed in Sec-
tion 4.5, impacts to historic resources would be less than significant with mitiga-
tion.
CC-P18.3 Encourage and cooperate with the private sector in the implementation
of innovative strategies to preserve all of Truckee’s identified historic
buildings and sites, including Native American and ethnic group sites.
Preservation strategies could include by gift, establishment of private
Consistent: The two known cultural resources of historic significance are within
the proposed open space that would be permanently reserved by preservation as
part of the future Canyon Springs Home Owner’s Association-owned open
space/common area. See CC-P18.1.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
LAND USE AND PLANNING
TABLE 4.10-1 TOWN OF TRUCKEE 2025 GENERAL PLAN POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)
4.10-21
Goal/Policy Consistency Discussion
conservancies, and easements.
CC-P18.5 Work with California State Parks, the Tahoe-Donner Recreation and
Parks District, the Truckee Donner Historical Society, the Truckee
Donner Land Trust and other entities to maintain and increase oppor-
tunities for public recreation and access to historic sites, including Na-
tive American and ethnic group sites. In the case of Native American
sites, any increased access should be developed in close consultation
with local tribes, and due respect accorded to the potential cultural or
spiritual significance of these places.
Consistent: Each of the listed agencies and other entities identified on the Notice
of Preparation (NOP) Distribution List were contacted on April 20, 2011 as part
of the CEQA process. A copy of the NOP, the NOP Distribution List, and
correspondence received in response to the NOP is included in Appendix B of
this Draft EIR. See CC-P18.1.
CC-P18.6 Support all efforts to document and preserve Truckee’s rich historic
legacy, including its Native American and ethnic history, and to edu-
cate residents and visitors about the town’s historic buildings and sites.
Consistent: See CC-P18.1, CC-P18.3, and CC-P18.5.
Goal CC-19: Identify and protect archaeological and paleontological resources that enrich our understanding of Truckee’s early history and the early cultures and environ-
ment of the region.
CC-P19.1 As part of the development review process, require proper archaeologi-
cal or paleontological surveying, testing, research, documentation,
monitoring and safe retrieval of archaeological and cultural resources.
Consistent: See CC-P18.1.
CC-P19.2 Require an archaeological survey by a qualified professional whenever
there is evidence of an archaeological or paleontological site within a
proposed project area that is determined to be a high likelihood for
occurrence of such sites, or where a project involves substantial site
disturbance.
Consistent: As discussed in Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, of this Draft EIR,
implementation of Mitigation Measure CULT-1a and CULT-1b would ensure
that archaeological materials that are discovered during project activities are pro-
tected. See CC-P18.1.
CC-P19.3 Consult with representatives of the Native American community
whenever necessary to ensure the respectful treatment of Native Amer-
ican sacred places.
Consistent: See CC-P18.5.
Goal CC-20: Strengthen the social fabric of the Truckee community.
Circulation (CIR)
Goal CIR-2: Maintain adequate Level of Service on Truckee’s roadways and intersections to ensure the safe and efficient movement of people and goods throughout the
Town.
CIR-P2.1 Establish and maintain a Level of Service D or better on road segments
and for total intersection movements in portions of the Town outside
Inconsistent: As discussed in Section 4.14, Transportation and Traffic, of this
Draft EIR, the project under 2011 and 2031 conditions would result in less than
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
LAND USE AND PLANNING
TABLE 4.10-1 TOWN OF TRUCKEE 2025 GENERAL PLAN POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)
4.10-22
Goal/Policy Consistency Discussion
of the Downtown Specific Plan Area.
Establish and maintain a Level of Service E or better on arterial and
collector road segments and for total intersection movements within
the Downtown Specific Plan Area.
Throughout the Town, individual turning movements at unsignalized
intersections shall not be allowed to reach LOS F and to exceed a cu-
mulative vehicle delay of four vehicle hours. Both of these conditions
shall be met for traffic operations to be considered unacceptable.
significant LOS impacts with implementation of the approved Railyard Master
Plan Project, which includes the Donner Pass Road Extension, with the excep-
tion of the worst movement at the Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road intersec-
tion, which would continue to operate at LOS F. Please see Impact TRANS-1
for more information.
CIR-P2.2 In addition to the standards described in Policy 2.1, the criteria and
thresholds shown in Table CIR-6 shall be applied to future develop-
ment projects to determine the need for a traffic impact analysis to be
conducted and to determine if a project’s traffic impact is found to be
significant.
Table CIR-6, Traffic Impact Analysis Criteria Category 3: Subdivision
of 11 or more lots, multifamily development of 11 or more units,
commercial/ industrial development of 7,500 square feet or more, or
equivalent development.
Inconsistent: A traffic impact analysis was prepared by LSC, Traffic Consult-
ants, Inc. The traffic impact analysis is included in Appendix I of this Draft EIR.
As discussed in detail in Section 4.14, Transportation and Traffic, project traffic
impacts were found to be less than significant with mitigation, with the excep-
tion of Impact TRANS-1, which was found to be significant and unavoidable.
CIR-P2.3 Allow flexibility and exceptions to the LOS standards described in
Policy P2.1 for the following intersections:
♦ Bridge Street/Donner Pass Road
♦ Bridge Street/River Street
♦ Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road
Exceptions to the standards may be allowed in cases where the Town
finds that improvements needed to achieve acceptable LOS: (a) should
be deferred in order to better coordinate with the planning and imple-
mentation of other projects including the Railyard; (b) will result in
unacceptable impacts (e.g. requiring demolition of historic buildings,
relocation of businesses); (c) are not feasible to construct; or (d) should
be deferred or lowered in order to better implement other transporta-
tion control measures including alternative transportation modes.
Inconsistent: At the Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection, the total
intersection LOS would degrade from LOS C to LOS D during the PM peak
hour, while the worst movement would continue to operate at LOS F with more
than 4 vehicle-hours of delay. This would be a significant and unavoidable im-
pact. Please see Impact TRANS-1 for more information.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
LAND USE AND PLANNING
TABLE 4.10-1 TOWN OF TRUCKEE 2025 GENERAL PLAN POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)
4.10-23
Goal/Policy Consistency Discussion
Exceptions should only be allowed after all feasible resources and op-
tions to implement needed improvements have been explored and ex-
hausted.
CIR-P2.4 Improve connectivity throughout the Town's roadway network,
through roadway improvements, while minimizing environmental,
circulation, and residential neighborhood impacts. This should in-
clude:
♦ New and improved links between roadways of the same classification.
♦ New and/or improved links between higher and lower capacity
roadways where such connections would not negatively impact the
lower capacity roadway's operations or local neighborhood charac-
ter, would be consistent with community character and environmen-
tal goals described elsewhere in the General Plan, and would not re-
sult in redesignation of a lower classification roadway to a higher
classification, unless shown as such on the Circulation Plan.
♦ Discouraging the use of local and residential neighborhood roadways
as through routes, particularly for commercial and industrial traffic.
♦ Requiring that new development maximizes connectivity of local
streets within the development itself, and makes connections to the
adjacent street network and neighborhood areas.
Consistent: The project would create internal roads throughout the project site
that would interface at various points and would provide access to residential
areas and the recreation area on the project site. The project proposes two con-
nections to the surrounding area at Edinburgh Drive and Martis Peak Road. The
project’s proposed gated access point at Edinburgh Drive could be an opportuni-
ty to connect to the adjacent street network and neighborhood areas; however,
this open connection has been ruled out as a result of public comments received
on the project. Additionally, Alternative 2, Two Open Vehicular Access Points,
presented in Chapter 5, Alternatives, of this Draft EIR, includes an analysis of
the impacts associated with this access point if it were not gated. Under this
alternative transportation and traffic impacts were found to be similar to that of
the proposed project. Furthermore, while Courtenay Court and Lance Drive to
the west of the project site could be considered additional connections points to
the adjacent street network and neighborhood areas, no such opportunities are
currently available.
Goal CIR-3: Minimize the impacts of new development on the existing roadway network.
CIR-P3.1 Require the preparation of traffic impact analyses to identify impacts
and mitigation measures for projects that may result in significant traf-
fic impacts, as specified in Table CIR-6. In these analyses, Level of
Service shall be computed according to the planning methodology doc-
umented in Special Report 209: Highway Capacity Manual, published by
the Transportation Research Board in 2000, or as amended in subse-
quent updates. Cumulative impacts shall be modeled buildout of the
General Plan.
Consistent: A traffic impact analysis was prepared by LSC, Traffic Consultants,
Inc. See CIR-P2.2.
CIR-P3.2 Require the assessment of construction-related project impacts in traffic
impact analyses that assesses and adequately mitigates the effect of con-
Consistent: A traffic impact analysis was required for the proposed project and
was prepared by LSC, Traffic Consultants, Inc. at the request of the Town. The
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
LAND USE AND PLANNING
TABLE 4.10-1 TOWN OF TRUCKEE 2025 GENERAL PLAN POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)
4.10-24
Goal/Policy Consistency Discussion
struction traffic on the roadway network, as well as any potential dis-
ruption to or re-routing of traffic that might be needed during project
construction.
traffic impact analysis includes an assessment of construction related impacts. As
discussed in Section 4.14, Transportation and Traffic, the construction-related
impacts associated with the project would be less than significant with mitiga-
tion.
CIR-P3.3 Require all new development projects to adequately mitigate identified
impacts through construction of improvements and/or payment of
traffic impact mitigation fees. Mitigation of significant project-related
impacts may require improvements beyond those addressed by the
current Capital Improvement Program and traffic impact mitigation fee
program.
Inconsistent: As discussed in Section 4.14, Transportation and Traffic, the traffic
related impacts associated with the project would be less than significant with
implementation of mitigation measures, with the exception of Impact TRANS-1,
which would be significant and unavoidable.
CIR-P3.4 Ensure that new streets and roads are dedicated and constructed accord-
ing to roadway design and access standards adopted by the Town.
Consistent: As illustrated on Figure 3-9 in Chapter 3, Project Description, of
this Draft EIR, the project roadways have been designed to meet the Town’s
Public Involvement & Engineering Standards (PIES). In general, the roads in the
internal circulation network would be 60 feet wide; however, the emergency
access connection to Edinburgh Drive would be 50 feet wide. All roadways
would include 20-foot snow storage easements on each side. In addition, the
project would adhere to the maximum cul-de-sac length of 1,320 feet and maxi-
mum speed design of 25 miles per hour. Once revenue neutrality is reached, the
roads would be accepted for public maintenance.
Goal CIR-4: Create new developments that are integrated into the circulation network and promote connectivity within and between community areas.
CIR-P4.1 Require transportation systems planned and constructed in conjunction
with significant development projects, including roads, trails, bikeways,
and other improvements, to provide links to the existing transportation
network.
Consistent: The project would create internal roads that would interface at vari-
ous points on the project site and would connect to Edinburgh Drive and Martis
Peak Road. The project would include 4.5 miles of publicly accessible trails that
would connect to existing trails adjacent to the project site. See CC-P5.5, CC-
P12.4 and CIR-P2.4.
CIR-P4.2 Require planning for land use and transportation systems in new
growth areas that provides opportunities for residents, employees, and
those without vehicles to accomplish many of their trips by walking,
bicycling, or using transit.
Inconsistent: While the project is a permitted land use consistent with General
Plan land use designations (RC/OS and RES) and zoning districts (OS and RS-
1.0), due to the nature of the project’s location on the eastern border of the
Town limit, it is primarily automobile dependent as it is not in close proximity
to basic commercial services. As discussed in Section 4.14, Transportation and
Traffic, of this Draft EIR, the project site, has direct access to Interstate 80 via the
Hirschdale Road off-ramp and Glenshire Drive via Martis Peak Road, and due to
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
LAND USE AND PLANNING
TABLE 4.10-1 TOWN OF TRUCKEE 2025 GENERAL PLAN POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)
4.10-25
Goal/Policy Consistency Discussion
the relatively long travel distance from Glenshire to the rest of the Truckee
community a high proportion of “trip chaining” would occur resulting in re-
duced vehicular trips. However, even with the project’s publicly accessible trail
network that would connect to existing trails adjacent to the project site, and
access to the Dial-A-Ride transit system, future resident’s would likely rely on
their automobiles to accomplish many of their trips.
Goal CIR-6: Minimize potentially adverse impacts of transportation infrastructure and parking facilities on Truckee’s community character and important environmental
and cultural resources.
CIR-P6.1 Locate, construct, and maintain new roads and roadway improvements
so as to prevent adverse impacts to water quality and significant biolog-
ical, scenic, and historic resources.
Consistent: Project and cumulative impacts to biological and cultural resources,
and water quality would be less than significant with implementation of mitiga-
tion measures as discussed in Section 4.4, Biological Resources, Section 4.5, Cul-
tural Resources, and Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Draft
EIR, respectively.
CIR-P6.3 Maintain Donner Pass Road at a three-lane cross-section (two lanes of
traffic with a left-turn lane). New projects that could add significant
traffic to Donner Pass Road must demonstrate that cumulative traffic
impacts will not result in the need to widen Donner Pass Road.
Inconsistent: With implementation of the approved Railyard Master Plan Pro-
ject, the Donner Pass Road Extension would be constructed east of Bridge Street,
tying into a new T-intersection on Glenshire Drive. The worst movement at the
Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection would continue to operate at
LOS F. Please see Impact TRANS-1 for more information.
Goal CIR-10: Provide a safe, comprehensive, and integrated system of facilities for pedestrians and cyclists and other non-motorized modes of transportation.
CIR-P10.2 Implement the network of trails and bikeways described in the Trails &
Bikeways Master Plan, with priority given to establishment of a trail
from Donner Lake along Donner Creek and the Truckee River to the
eastern Town limit. This cross-town trail would serve as the main "ar-
tery" of the Town's trail network, with other trails connecting to it
along its length, and would provide a critical link to major regional
trails including a trail to the west that connects to Donner Summit and
the Pacific Crest Trail, and to the east to trails that follow the Truckee
River to Nevada.
Consistent: The project’s proposed 4.5-mile publicly accessible trail system
would connect to the Town’s proposed recreational trail corridor as identified in
the Town of Truckee TBMP. The TBMP illustrates a proposed corridor for a
recreational trail (surface to be determined) generally crossing the project site in
an east and west direction. See OA6-P1, LU-P7.1, CC-P1.1, CC-P1.4, and CIR-
P4.2.
CIR-P10.3 Identify and implement new pedestrian facilities beyond those identi-
fied in the Trails & Bikeways Master Plan and Downtown Streetscape
Plan. These facilities may include, but not be limited to, pedestrian
facilities along Donner Pass Road between Cold Stream Road and
Consistent: The project’s proposed publicly accessible 4.5-mile trail system ex-
ceeds the proposed pedestrian facilities identified in the TBMP. The public ac-
cess points utilize existing trail alignments to provide connectivity to the sur-
rounding community for permitted and lawful use of on-site trails by the public.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
LAND USE AND PLANNING
TABLE 4.10-1 TOWN OF TRUCKEE 2025 GENERAL PLAN POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)
4.10-26
Goal/Policy Consistency Discussion
South Shore Drive, along Highway 89 South, and along West River
Street.
The trails would be accessible for summer and winter non-motorized uses such as
hiking, running, mountain biking, equestrian use, cross-country skiing, and
snowshoeing. See CIR-P10.2.
CIR-P10.5 Link new trails and bikeways with other bikeways, parks and open
space areas to provide safe and continuous routes.
Consistent: The public access points utilize existing trail alignments to provide
connectivity to the surrounding community for permitted and lawful use of on-
site trails by the public. See OA6-P1, LU-P7.1, CC-P1.1, CC-P1.4, CIR-P4.2,
and CIR-P10.3.
CIR-P10.10 Require major development projects to include pedestrian facilities and
bikeways.
Consistent: See OA6-P1, LU-P7.1, CC-P1.1, CC-P1.4, CIR-P4.2, CIR-P10.3, and
CIR-P10.5.
CIR-P10.11 Enforce pedestrian and bicycle access standards for all new develop-
ment and require developers to finance and install pedestrian walkways,
equestrian trails, and multi-use trails in new development, as appropri-
ate and necessary to address circulation needs. Consider and work
towards a mean by which the requirements of the Trails & Bikeways
Master Plan can be met by affordable housing projects.
Consistent: See OA6-P1, LU-P7.1, CC-P1.1, CC-P1.4, CIR-P4.2, CIR-P10.3, and
CIR-P10.5.
CIR-P10.12 Provide facilities that separate bicycle and pedestrian traffic from ve-
hicular traffic whenever it is feasible to do so.
Consistent: See OA6-P1, LU-P7.1, CC-P1.1, CC-P1.4, CIR-P4.2, CIR-P10.3, and
CIR-P10.5.
Goal CIR-11: Enhance the existing bus and rail transit system in Truckee.
CIR-P11.1 Require new development to incorporate features that encourage trans-
it use, including shelters and safe routes to transit stops, and ensure that
right-of-way for future transit access is reserved in plans for new
growth areas.
Consistent: While there are currently no transit services or facilities in the pro-
ject area to serve the project or the rural residential developments surrounding
the project site, the project’s four trailhead access points illustrated on Figure 3-8
in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Draft EIR, located at; A) the Glenshire
Drive/Whitehorse Road/Martis Peak Road intersection; B) the project’s west
border connecting to the trail along the tributary exiting near the Elkhorn Ridge
Owner Association; C) the project’s west border at the access road of the Liberty
Energy – California Pacific Electric Company substation, and D) at the end of
Edinburgh Drive could serve as future transit shelters. In addition, the project’s
4.5-mile publicly accessible trail system would provide safe routes to these access
points. As with other surrounding residential uses, if and when transit services
are planned for the project vicinity, the project applicant would be required to
work with the Town and neighboring communities to provide adequate transit
facilities to the residents in the area.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
LAND USE AND PLANNING
TABLE 4.10-1 TOWN OF TRUCKEE 2025 GENERAL PLAN POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)
4.10-27
Goal/Policy Consistency Discussion
Housing (H)
Goal H-1: Ensure an adequate supply of housing to meet the housing needs of all segments of the community.
H-P1.1 Provide adequate sites for the production of new residential units to
meet the needs of existing and future residents.
Consistent: The project’s 185 lots would achieve a minimum density of at least
86 percent of the maximum allowed density (213 lots on 213 acres in the RS-1.0
Zoning District). The project would provide affordable housing units consistent
with the minimum 15 percent affordable housing allocation for new residential
developments (i.e. eight lots with 28 units [185 lots x 15 percent = 27.75]).
H-P1.2 Encourage the private sector to build affordable housing. Consistent: The project would provide affordable housing units consistent with
the minimum 15 percent affordable housing allocation for new residential devel-
opments. See consistency discussion for Policy H-P1.1 above.
Goal H-4: Balance the need and provision of housing in the community with its impacts on the environment and needed public facilities and services.
H-P4.1 Encourage residential design that promotes energy efficiency and sus-
tainable building practices and reduces greenhouse gas emissions.
Consistent: Implementation of the Draft Design Guidelines prepared for the
project, which includes energy-efficient green building standards such as southern
exposure and tree canopy shading siting considerations, skylights, solar panels,
radiant heating systems, and installation of energy star appliances and windows,
would ensure greenhouse gas emissions would be less than significant. See Sec-
tion 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of this Draft EIR.
H-P4.2 Encourage residential development that reduces infrastructure and oth-
er development costs, preserves and enhances important environmental
resources, and maintains important areas as open space.
Inconsistent: The project would be consistent with the Rural Suburban Clusters
definition described in General Plan Table LU-7, Clustered Development Types
and Applicable Land Use Designations. As described in LU-P7.1 through LU-
P7.5, the project would preserve and enhance important environmental re-
sources. However, while the site would be served by the existing roadway infra-
structure, as discussed in Section 4.14, Transportation and Traffic, roadway im-
provements to the existing roadway infrastructure would be required and new
on-site roadways would be constructed. Furthermore, there is no existing utility
infrastructure on the project site and the project would require off-site water line
infrastructure improvements. While the environmental impacts associated with
development of the project’s infrastructure were found to be less than significant
or less than significant with mitigation, the project would not reduce infrastruc-
ture and other development costs.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
LAND USE AND PLANNING
TABLE 4.10-1 TOWN OF TRUCKEE 2025 GENERAL PLAN POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)
4.10-28
Goal/Policy Consistency Discussion
Conservation and Open Space (COS)
Goal COS-1: Preserve existing open space in Truckee, and increase the amount of desired types of open space under permanent protection.
COS-P1.1 Acquire and preserve open space lands in Truckee, and purchase devel-
opment rights for the purpose of open space preservation, with priority
given to the following open space types:
♦ Regional parks
♦ Neighborhood parks
♦ Pristine open space and large blocks of undeveloped open space
♦ Open space corridors that provide connections between different
open space areas
♦ Lands with a high level of scenic value
Consistent: Although the development of the project would result in the con-
version of approximately 107 acres of undeveloped land to low-density residen-
tial, the project conforms to the General Plan land use designation and zoning
district standards. The proposed project would preserve 176 acres of public open
space and natural habitat. See LU-P7.1, CC-P1.4, and CC-P2.10.
COS-P1.4 Cluster new development where appropriate in order to maximize
preservation of land in open space. Clustering shall conform to the
guidelines established in Policies and Actions listed under Goal LU-7 in
the Land Use Element.
Consistent: The project meets the standards set forth in the General Plan for the
Rural Suburban Clusters. See LU-P7.1, and LU-P7.3 through LU-P7.5.
COS-P1.5 Adhere to the following criteria for open space preserved through di-
rect actions of the Town, through open space and clustered develop-
ment requirements and incentives, and through the development re-
view process:
♦ Provide the maximum possible degree of community benefit, as ex-
pressed through the Vision for Truckee and the guiding principles,
goals and policies of the General Plan.
♦ Preserve open space that, to the greatest possible extent, occurs in
large blocks and is contiguous and connected.
♦ Provide the greatest possible level of public access while respecting
private property rights, sensitive habitat values, and safety concerns.
♦ Provide maximum benefit in terms of habitat preservation.
♦ Enhance the overall character of Truckee as a scenic, mountain com-
munity.
Consistent: The project’s proposed public open space would exceed Town
standards and be preserved as part of the future Canyon Springs Home Owner’s
Association-owned open space/common area. The project would include
4.5 miles of publicly accessible trails that would connect to existing trails adjacent
to the project site. See LU-P7.1, CC-P1.4, CC-P2.10, and COS-P1.1.
Goal COS-3: Protect and increase the amount of pristine open space in and around Truckee.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
LAND USE AND PLANNING
TABLE 4.10-1 TOWN OF TRUCKEE 2025 GENERAL PLAN POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)
4.10-29
Goal/Policy Consistency Discussion
COS-P3.2 Support appropriate trail construction to provide public access to and
across wilderness and other pristine open space areas.
Consistent: The project would connect to open space and trails on adjacent
properties to provide a network of connected open space areas and a 4.5-mile
publicly accessible trail network. See CC-P5.5 and CC-P12.4.
Goal COS-4: Protect areas of significant wildlife habitat and sensitive biological resources.
COS-P4.1 Provide for the integrity and continuity of biological resources open
space, habitat, and wildlife movement corridors and support the per-
manent protection and restoration of these areas, particularly those
identified as sensitive resources.
Consistent: The project’s proposed public open space would exceed Town
standards and be preserved as part of the future Canyon Springs Home Owners
Association-owned open space/common area. See LU-P7.1, CC-P1.4, CC-P2.10,
and COS-P1.1.
COS-P4.2 Protect sensitive wildlife habitat from destruction and intrusion by
incompatible land uses where appropriate. All efforts to protect sensi-
tive habitats should consider:
♦ Sensitive habitat and movement corridors in the areas adjacent to
development sites, as well as on the development site itself.
♦ Prevention of habitat fragmentation and loss of connectivity.
♦ Use of appropriate protection measures for sensitive habitat areas
such as non-disturbance easements and open space zoning.
♦ Off-site habitat restoration as a potential mitigation, provided that no
net loss of habitat value results.
♦ Potential mitigation or elimination of impacts through mandatory
clustering of development, and/or project redesign.
Consistent: Rural residential development on the 107 acres would result in a net
loss of biological resources, open space and wildlife corridors; however, the pro-
posed provision of permanent open space would preserve the wildlife corridor as
well as the biologically sensitive pebble meadows. As discussed in Section 4.2,
Agriculture and Forestry Resources, of this Draft EIR, impacts to biological re-
sources were found to be less than significant or less than significant with mitiga-
tion. See LU-P7.1, CC-P1.4, CC-P2.10, and COS-P1.1.
COS-P4.4 Preserve riparian corridors, Donner Lake and aquatic and wetland areas
through application of setbacks and other development standards that
respect these resources.
Consistent: The proposed development of 185 housing lots and associated infra-
structure would provide setback buffers between future homes and environmen-
tally-sensitive areas such as wetlands and ephemeral drainages. All building enve-
lopes are proposed outside of the Town-required 50-foot setback from designated
100-year floodplains for the two blue line waterways. A minimum 50-foot set-
back to building envelopes would be maintained along all other on-site ephemer-
al drainages, although not a Town requirement. Private housing lot boundaries
are proposed within 50 feet of designated 100-year floodplains. As previously
discussed, the proposed site layout incorporates four floodplain road crossings.
Steel bridges with concrete decking supported by two abutments are planned to
span the width of the drainage way, which has been designed to accommodate a
100-year flood event. The project includes a 100-foot setback from the main
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
LAND USE AND PLANNING
TABLE 4.10-1 TOWN OF TRUCKEE 2025 GENERAL PLAN POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)
4.10-30
Goal/Policy Consistency Discussion
drainage corridor and a 50-foot setback from all wet meadows (i.e., Buck Creek)
and secondary/smaller drainages. See LU-P.4.
COS-P4.5 Development shall be prohibited within established setback areas for
streams and waterways other than the Truckee River, except as other-
wise allowed in the Development Code; such setbacks shall be between
20 and 50 feet on parcels less than 175 feet deep (depending on parcel
depth), and 50 feet on parcels 175 feet deep or more.
Consistent: See LU-P.4 and COS-P4.4.
Goal COS-5: Maintain biodiversity among plant and animal species in the Town of Truckee and the surrounding area, with special consideration of species identified as
sensitive, rare, declining, unique, or representing valuable biological resources.
COS-P5.1 Require biological resource assessments for all development in areas
where special status species may be present.
Consistent: As discussed in Section 4.4, Biological Resources, of this Draft EIR,
the project site and surrounding area has been the subject of numerous biological
assessments and ongoing monitoring efforts by the California Department of
Fish and Game and the Nevada Department of Wildlife. Expert biologists and
experts with the Loyalton-Truckee deer herd performed site visits and prepared
peer reviews of the technical studies previously prepared for the project site.
COS-P5.2 Protect native plant species in undisturbed portions of a development
site and encourage planting and regeneration of native plant species
wherever possible in undisturbed portions of the project site.
Consistent: The project includes 176.17 acres of public open space with native
vegetation and pebble meadows to be permanently reserved by protective con-
servation easement. The project would incorporate existing trees and vegetation
into the project design. The project includes replanting native vegetation on the
portion of project site that was the location of a previous fire. See LU-P1.1 and
CC-P2.10
COS-P5.3 Protect to the extent possible federal or State-designated endangered,
threatened, special status or candidate species.
Consistent: As discussed in Section 4.4, Biological Resources, of this Draft EIR,
project and cumulative impacts to biological resources would be less than signifi-
cant with implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-2, and BIO-3. See
LU-P1.1, CC-P2.10, and COS-P5.2.
COS-7 Protect and conserve managed resource open space for its productive resource values, including timber harvesting and grazing uses, and for its recreational, scenic
and biological values.
COS-P7.1 Work closely with the Forest Service and private property owners to
ensure that forest or rangeland areas are preserved, to the extent feasi-
ble, for continued managed resource, recreation, scenic or biological
resource open space uses.
Potentially Consistent: Pursuant to Section 1104.2 of the California Forest Prac-
tice Rules, the project would be exempt from the State requirement for a Tim-
berland Conversion Permit on the condition that the Truckee Town Council
approves the proposed subdivision map and grants the use permits required for
the project.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
LAND USE AND PLANNING
TABLE 4.10-1 TOWN OF TRUCKEE 2025 GENERAL PLAN POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)
4.10-31
Goal/Policy Consistency Discussion
In compliance with Section 1034 of the California Forest Practice Rules, a Tim-
ber Harvesting Plan (THP) would be prepared prior to the issuance of building
permits. The THP would describe the boundaries, conditions, and ownership of
the land to be cleared for project buildout. Additionally, a Notice of Exemption
from Timberland Conversion Permit for Subdivision would be filed with the
Director of Forestry and Fire Protection before site clearing begins and before
the THP is submitted, as required under the California Forest Practice Rules.
Under the proposed project, 176.17 acres of public open space on the project site
would be permanently preserved as part of the future Canyon Springs Home
Owner’s Association-owned open space/common area.
The project includes a publicly accessible 4.5-mile trail system made up of both 2-
foot-wide soft-surface earthen trails and 12-foot-wide gravel trails. See CC-P2-10,
CC-P5.1, COS-P1.1, and COS-P5.2.
COS-P7.4 Coordinate with the California Department of Forestry in the review
of all timber harvesting and conversion plans relative to potential im-
pacts on visual, biological and recreational resources.
Potentially Consistent: See COS-P7.1.
Goal COS-8: Provide or support a comprehensive, high quality system of parks and other recreational open space facilities in Truckee.
COS-P8.1 Require land or in-lieu fees for parks to be provided by new develop-
ment at a minimum ratio of 5 acres per thousand population, to con-
form with standards established by the Town in accordance with the
Quimby Act.
Consistent: As discussed in Section 4.13, Public Services and Recreation, of this
Draft EIR, under this policy the project would be required to dedicate 2.34 acres
of parkland and, to be consistent with Development Code 18.46.050 standard the
project would be required to dedicate 106.5 acres of open space. The proposed
176.17 acres of public open space on the project site would exceed the 50 percent
minimum required by 69.67 acres or 65.4 percent.
COS-P8.2 Support efforts to create a new regional park, neighborhood parks in
new neighborhoods, and at least an additional two new neighborhood
parks for existing neighborhoods in Truckee.
Consistent: The project includes a 24,015-square foot recreational area to be
centrally located within the project site that would be available for use by future
residents. See LU-P5.3.
Goal COS-9: Link open space areas in Truckee through a well-connected network of open space corridors and trails.
COS-P9.1 Provide for links between open space areas, both within Truckee and Consistent: The project would include public open space and natural habitat
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
LAND USE AND PLANNING
TABLE 4.10-1 TOWN OF TRUCKEE 2025 GENERAL PLAN POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)
4.10-32
Goal/Policy Consistency Discussion
beyond the Town limits, to create contiguous habitat areas and enhance
public access through greater connectivity.
that would connect to the adjacent open space and 4.5 miles of publicly accessible
trails that would connect to existing trails and open space adjacent to the project
site. See LU-P7.1, CC-P1.7, and CC-P1.4.
COS-P9.2 Support the development and construction of a town-wide system of
trails and bikeways, including, as priorities, the development of the
Donner Lake/Truckee River parkway (see Goal COS-10), and the es-
tablishment of trails linking the Downtown with the Gateway Area
and surrounding developed areas.
Consistent: The project would include 4.5 miles of publicly accessible trails that
would connect to existing trails and open space adjacent to the project site. See
CC-5.5, CC-P12.4, and COS-P8.1.
COS-P9.3 Require new development to incorporate trail corridors identified in
the Trails & Bikeways Master Plan into the overall project site plan.
Consistent: The project’s proposed 4.5-mile publicly accessible trail system pro-
vides a section of 2-foot-wide soft-surface earthen trail and 12-foot-wide gravel
trail on the Recreational Trail Segment No. 42 identified in the Truckee May
TBMP. Recreational Trail Segment No. 42 is a proposed corridor for a recrea-
tional trail that crosses the project site, connects to the Glenshire area, and pro-
vides a regional link. See CC-5.5, CC-P12.4, and COS-P8.1.
COS-P9.4 Preserve existing open space corridors, and connections to adjacent
open space areas, and integrate publicly accessible trails and open space
corridors into new development to the extent feasible.
Consistent: The project would include public open space and natural habitat
that would connect to the adjacent open space and 4.5 miles of publicly accessible
trails that would connect to existing trails and open space. See LU-P7.1, CC-
P1.7, and CC-P1.4.
Goal COS-11: Protect water quality and quantity in creeks, lakes, natural drainages, and groundwater basins.
COS-P11.1 Minimize excessive paving that negatively impacts surface water runoff
and groundwater recharge rates.
Consistent: The project would introduce paving and impervious surface where
none currently exist; however, it would not be excessive (e.g., no surface park-
ing). Paved surfaces would be for vehicular roadways and driveways only, which
would be built to Town standards. The Project would be developed consistent
with applicable development regulations, including lot coverage requirements of
40 percent maximum coverage for lots of 10,000 square feet or greater. Surface
drainage from impervious surfaces, such as residential roofs and driveways locat-
ed within the proposed restricted building envelopes, will be collected, treated,
and contained on-site using low impact development (LID) methods of drainage
treatment. As discussed in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this
Draft EIR, project and cumulative impacts to water quality were found to be less
than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures HYDRO-1a, -1b,
and -1c, and HYDRO 2a, -2b, and 2c. Furthermore, as discussed in Section 4.15,
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
LAND USE AND PLANNING
TABLE 4.10-1 TOWN OF TRUCKEE 2025 GENERAL PLAN POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)
4.10-33
Goal/Policy Consistency Discussion
Utilities and Service Systems, impacts to water supply would be less than signifi-
cant.
COS-P11.2 Protect surface and groundwater resources from contamination from
runoff containing pollutants and sediment, through implementation of
the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s (RWQCB) Lahontan
Region's Best Management Practices.
Consistent: As discussed in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this
Draft EIR, the project would be subject to all applicable local, State, and federal
law, including the mandated requirements of the Regional Water Quality Con-
trol Board’s (RWQCB) Lahontan Region's Best Management Practices. The
project would go through permit application review and a compliance determi-
nation would be made prior to issuance of permits or any ground disturbing
activities.
COS-P11.3 Cooperate with State and local agencies in efforts to identify and elimi-
nate all sources of existing and potential point and non-point sources of
pollution to ground and surface waters, including leaking fuel tanks,
discharges from storm drains, auto dismantling, dump sites, sanitary
waste systems, parking lots, roadways, and logging and mining opera-
tions.
Consistent: As discussed in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this
Draft EIR, the project and cumulative impacts to water quality were found to be
less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures HYDRO-1a, -
1b, and -1c, and HYDRO 2a, -2b, and 2c.
COS-P11.5 Require new development projects that have the potential to impact
local water quality through increased stormwater runoff or erosion to
include analysis of water quality impacts as a component of project
review, and to integrate mitigation measures that would reduce identi-
fied impacts to an acceptable level.
Consistent: An independent evaluation and analysis of the 2007 Draft EIR Hy-
drology and Water Quality section and technical reports (including the 2003
Drainage Plan and Hydrology Report, Soil Survey, comment letters) was con-
ducted to determine the impacts of the project in relation to existing or potential
hydrology and water quality issues on the project site. As discussed in Section
4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Draft EIR, the project and cumulative
impacts to water quality were found to be less than significant with implementa-
tion of Mitigation Measures HYDRO-1a, -1b, and -1c, and HYDRO 2a, -2b, and
2c.
COS-P11.6 Utilize Low Impact Development and Best Management Practices es-
tablished in the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Truckee Riv-
er Hydrologic Unit Project Guidelines for Erosion Control, and the
State of California Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbooks,
and other resources such as the Practice of Low Impact Development
(US Department of Housing and Urban Development) and Water
Quality Model Code and Guidebook (State of Oregon, Department of
Land Conservation and Development) as guidelines for water quality
and erosion control measures required by the Town.
Consistent: As shown on Figure 3-12, in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this
Draft EIR, surface drainage from impervious surfaces such as residential roofs
and driveways located within the proposed restricted building envelopes will be
collected, treated, and contained on-site using LID methods of drainage treat-
ment. Infiltration trenches, rainwater gardens, and small retention, or subsurface
structures would also be utilized. See COS-P11.2.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
LAND USE AND PLANNING
TABLE 4.10-1 TOWN OF TRUCKEE 2025 GENERAL PLAN POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)
4.10-34
Goal/Policy Consistency Discussion
COS-P11.7 Ensure that all proposed developments can be adequately served by
available water supplies.
Consistent: As discussed in Section 4.15, Utilities and Service Systems, of this
Draft EIR, there would be adequate water supply available for the proposed pro-
ject with the installation of water main improvements to the Truckee-Donner
Public Utilities District (water) network.
COS-P11.8 Support all efforts to encourage water conservation by Truckee resi-
dents and businesses, and public agencies, including working with the
Truckee Donner Public Utility District, to implement water conserva-
tion programs and incentives that facilitate conservation efforts.
Consistent: With implementation of the Draft Design Guidelines landscaping
would include the use of native, sustainable landscaping indigenous to the Truck-
ee region on individual lots and would be designed to deflect wind, moderate
heat and glare impacts, muffle noise, reduce soil erosion, conserve water, and
promote trail safety. The Draft Design Guidelines also propose efficient green
building standards including the installation of energy star appliances. See CC-
P2.10, CC-P5.8, CC-P5.9, and COS-P5.2
COS-P11.9 Recognize the importance of stormwater management in protecting all
water resources in Truckee, for example, flood control, surface and
ground water quality, and river, stream and lake health.
Consistent: As discussed in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this
Draft EIR, the project and cumulative impacts to water quality were found to be
less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures HYDRO-1a, -
1b, and -1c, and HYDRO 2a, -2b, and 2c.
Goal COS-12: Protect the Town's soil resources from erosion.
COS-P12.1 Preserve slopes of 30 percent or greater as open space and avoid slopes
of 20 percent to 30 percent if there are other, more suitable areas for
development with slopes less than 20 percent.
Consistent: While the project site has slopes ranging from 1 to 10 percent and
some isolated areas exceeding 30 percent no housing would be developed on
slopes of 20 percent to 30 percent. Areas on the project site with slopes of 30
percent or greater would be persevered as Open Space.
COS-P12.2 Require projects that require earthwork and grading, including cuts and
fills for roads, to incorporate measures to minimize erosion and sedi-
mentation. Typical measures include project design that conforms
with natural contours and site topography, maximizing retention of
natural vegetation, and implementing erosion control Best Management
Practices.
Consistent: The project would complement the natural topography and rolling
meadows and wooded areas on the site and no excessive grading would occur.
Grading for infrastructure and roadways would be balanced on site. The cut/fill
estimates for the infrastructure and roadways include approximately 15,000 cubic
yards of cut and 15,000 cubic yards of fill. As the project’s phases are built out,
temporary stockpiles would be used during grading and filling activities. The
proposed housing lots would be organized to follow the contour on the north
and south edges of the proposed public open space corridor. See CC-P12.3 and
COS-P11.2.
Goal COS-13: Reduce particulate matter pollution in Truckee to meet State and federal ambient air quality standards.
COS-P13.1 Require multi-family residential, commercial, industrial, subdivisions Consistent: As discussed in Section 4.3, Air Quality, of this Draft EIR, the pro-
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
LAND USE AND PLANNING
TABLE 4.10-1 TOWN OF TRUCKEE 2025 GENERAL PLAN POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)
4.10-35
Goal/Policy Consistency Discussion
and other discretionary development to maintain consistency with the
goals, policies, and control strategies of the Town’s Particulate Matter
Air Quality Management Plan.
ject would be consistent with the Town’s Particulate Matter Air Quality Manage-
ment Plan.
COS-P13.2 Existing non-paved roads within new development and subdivision,
and existing off-site non-paved roads that serve new development and
subdivisions shall be paved to the extent necessary to offset emissions
generated by the development and subdivision traffic to the degree
feasible. New non-paved roads shall not be allowed for new develop-
ment and subdivisions except for single-family residences, secondary
residential units, and duplexes on existing lots. New paving shall take
into consideration the policies under Goal COS-11 concerning minimi-
zation of impacts to water quality and groundwater recharge that may
result from increases in paved areas.
Consistent: The project would pave all vehicular roads new and on the project
site. See COS-P11.1.
COS-P13.3 Require all construction projects to implement dust control measures
to reduce particulate matter emissions due to disturbance of exposed
top-soils. Such measures would include watering of active areas where
disturbance occurs, covering haul loads, maintaining clean access roads,
and cleaning the wheels of construction vehicles accessing disturbed
areas of the site.
Consistent: As discussed in Section 4.3, Air Quality, of this Draft EIR, imple-
mentation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1, would eliminate or offset proposed
project emissions from construction impacts.
Goal COS-14: Reduce emissions of air contaminants and minimize public exposure to toxic, hazardous, and odoriferous air pollutants.
COS-P14.1 Minimize potential impacts created by unpleasant odors, as well as
other airborne pollutants from industrial and commercial develop-
ments.
Consistent: As discussed in Section 4.3, Air Quality, of this Draft EIR, tempo-
rary construction could occur, but no other sources of objectionable odors
would occur from the proposed project.
COS-P14.2 Prohibit sensitive receptors such as residential uses, schools, and hospi-
tals, from locating in the vicinity of industrial and commercial uses
known to emit toxic, hazardous, or odoriferous air pollutants, and
prohibit the establishment of such uses in the vicinity of sensitive re-
ceptors.
Consistent: The project is surrounded by residential development and would not
introduce a sensitive receptor in the vicinity of industrial and commercial uses
known to emit toxic, hazardous, or odoriferous air pollutants
COS-P14.4 Review all discretionary development applications to determine the
need for pedestrian/bike paths connecting to adjacent development and
services, in order to provide alternatives to automobile transportation.
Consistent: See CC-P1.4, CC-P5.5, CC-P12-4, COS-P8.1, COS-P3.2, COS-P4.1,
and COS-P9.1.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
LAND USE AND PLANNING
TABLE 4.10-1 TOWN OF TRUCKEE 2025 GENERAL PLAN POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)
4.10-36
Goal/Policy Consistency Discussion
COS-P14.7 Promote the use of public and private transit services within Truckee
and between the Town and ski resorts and other destinations in the
Tahoe area.
Consistent: See CIR-P4.2.
COS-P14.9 Require new development with the potential to generate significant
quantities of ozone precursor air pollutants to be analyzed in accord-
ance with guidelines provided by the NSAQMD and appropriate miti-
gation be applied to the project to minimize these emissions.
Consistent: As discussed in Section 4.3, Air Quality, of this Draft EIR, the pro-
ject would be consistent with the Northern Sierra Air Quality Management Dis-
trict’s guidelines.
Goal COS-15: Encourage conservation of energy and fuel resources, strive to reduce generation of solid waste, and promote environmental sustainability.
COS-P15.1 Support recycling programs town-wide, including the curbside recy-
cling and business waste reduction programs.
Consistent: The project would participate in the Town’s recycling program,
including curbside recycling.
COS-P15.5 Encourage new private and public development to maximize opportu-
nities for use of passive or natural heating and cooling and encourage
sites with solar opportunities to be designed with natural heating and
cooling principles.
Consistent: The Draft Design Guidelines propose energy efficient green building
standards such as southern exposure and tree canopy shading siting considera-
tions, skylights, solar panels, radiant heating systems, and installation of energy
star appliances and windows. See H-P4.1.
Noise (N)
Goal N-1: Minimize community exposure to excessive noise by ensuring compatible land uses relative to noise sources.
N-P1.1 Allow new development only if consistent with the ground transporta-
tion noise compatibility guidelines illustrated in Figure N-3 and the
policies of this Element. Noise measurements used in establishing
compatibility shall be measured in dBA CNEL and based on worst-case
noise levels, either existing or future, with future noise levels to be pre-
dicted based on projected 2025 levels.
Consistent: As discussed in Section 4.11, Noise, of this Draft EIR, the project
would be consistent with the noise compatibility guidelines and noise measure-
ments were measured in dBA CNEL and based on worst-case noise levels, either
existing or future, with future noise levels to be predicted based on projected
2025 levels.
N-P1.2 Require new development to mitigate exterior noise to “normally ac-
ceptable” levels in outdoor areas where quiet is a benefit, such as in the
backyards of single-family homes.
Consistent: As discussed in Section 4.11, Noise, of this Draft EIR, the project
would not exceed exterior noise levels in outdoor areas.
N-P1.3 Enforce the California Noise Insulation Standards for interior noise
levels attributable to exterior sources for all proposed new single- and
multi-family residences.
Consistent: The project would comply with all applicable local, State, and feder-
al law including the California Noise Insulation Standards for interior noise lev-
els attributable to exterior sources for all proposed new single- and multi-family
residences.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
LAND USE AND PLANNING
TABLE 4.10-1 TOWN OF TRUCKEE 2025 GENERAL PLAN POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)
4.10-37
Goal/Policy Consistency Discussion
Goal N-2: Address noise issues through the planning and permitting process.
N-P2.1 Require mitigation of all significant noise impacts as a condition of
project approval.
Consistent: As discussed in Section 4.11, Noise, of this Draft EIR, the project
would not result in any significant project or cumulative noise impacts.
N-P2.2 Require preparation of a noise analysis/acoustical study, which is to
include recommendations for mitigation, for all proposed projects
which may result in potentially significant noise impacts to nearby
noise sensitive land uses such as residences.
Consistent: As discussed in Section 4.11, Noise of this Draft EIR, a noise analy-
sis was prepared for the Project by LSA, and the project would not result in any
significant project or cumulative noise impacts.
N-P2.5 Require the application of the provisions in the California Building
Code Appendix Chapter II, Sections 1208A.8: Exterior Sound Trans-
mission Control, to apply to all new single-family residences.
Consistent: As discussed in Section 4.11, Noise, of this Draft EIR, the project
would not result in any significant project or cumulative noise impacts. The
project would comply with all applicable local, State, and federal law including
the California Building Code Appendix Chapter II, Sections 1208A.8: Exterior
Sound Transmission Control.
Goal N-3: Reduce noise levels from sources such as domestic uses, construction and car stereos, and from mobile sources, including motor vehicle traffic and aircraft opera-
tions.
N-P3.2 Regulate noise from non-emergency construction activities through the
Municipal Noise Ordinance.
N-P3.13 Require the following standard construction noise control measures to
be included as requirements at construction sites in order to minimize
construction noise impacts.
♦ Equip all internal combustion engine driven equipment with intake
and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for
the equipment.
♦ Locate stationary noise generating equipment as far as possible from
sensitive receptors when sensitive receptors adjoin or are near a con-
struction project area.
♦ Utilize “quiet” air compressors and other stationary noise generating
equipment where appropriate technology exists.
♦ The project sponsor shall designate a “disturbance coordinator” who
would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about
construction noise. The disturbance coordinator will determine the
cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler,
etc.) and will require that reasonable measures warranted to correct
Consistent: As discussed in Section 4.11, Noise, of this Draft EIR, the project
would not result in any significant construction noise impacts with implementa-
tion of Mitigation Measure Noise-1a and -1b.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
LAND USE AND PLANNING
TABLE 4.10-1 TOWN OF TRUCKEE 2025 GENERAL PLAN POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)
4.10-38
Goal/Policy Consistency Discussion
the problem be implemented. The project sponsor shall also post a
telephone number for excessive noise complaints in conspicuous lo-
cations in the vicinity of the project site. Additionally, the project
sponsor shall send a notice to neighbors in the project vicinity with
information on the construction schedule and the telephone number
for noise complaints.
Safety (SAF)
Goal SAF-1: Reduce the risk of injury, loss of life and property damage from earthquakes, landslides and other geologic hazards.
SAF-P1.1 Group and locate new residential development in such a way as to
avoid areas of hazard including steep slopes and areas of unstable soils.
Consistent: As discussed in Section 4.6, Geology and Soils, the project would
not be developed in areas of unstable soils. While the project site has slopes rang-
ing from 1 to 10 percent and some isolated areas exceeding 30 percent, no hous-
ing would be developed on slopes of 20 percent to 30 percent. All building enve-
lopes are proposed outside of the Town required 50-foot setback from designated
100-year floodplains for the two blue line waterways. A minimum 50-foot set-
back to building envelopes would be maintained along all other on-site ephemer-
al drainages, although not a Town requirement. Private housing lot boundaries
are proposed within 50 feet of designated 100-year floodplain. As previously
discussed, the proposed site layout incorporates four floodplain road crossings.
Steel bridges with concrete decking supported by two abutments are planned to
span the width of the drainage way, which has been designed to accommodate a
100-year flood event. See COS-P4.4.
Goal SAF-2: Reduce hazards associated with flooding.
SAF-P2.3 Incorporate stormwater drainage systems in development projects to
effectively control the rate and amount of runoff, so as to prevent in-
creases in downstream flooding potential.
Consistent: As discussed in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this
Draft EIR, the project’s stormwater drainage systems would effectively control
the rate and amount of runoff, so as to prevent increases in downstream flooding
potential.
SAF-P2.4 Discourage development within the Truckee River floodplain and adja-
cent to other waterways to minimize risks associated with flooding.
Consistent: Setbacks to building envelopes would be maintained along all other
on-site ephemeral drainages and private housing lot boundaries are proposed
outside the designated 100-year floodplains. See COS-P4.4.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
LAND USE AND PLANNING
TABLE 4.10-1 TOWN OF TRUCKEE 2025 GENERAL PLAN POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)
4.10-39
Goal/Policy Consistency Discussion
Goal SAF-4: Protect lives and property from risks associated with wildland and urban fire.
SAF-P4.2 Continue to cooperate with the Fire Protection District to implement
fire safety ordinances to minimize wildland fire hazards, including in-
corporation of fire resistant building and roofing materials, and attain-
ment and maintenance of “defensible space.”
Defensible space may include revegetation with less flammable species,
such as fire resistant native and adapted species, and the use of mulch to
prevent erosion on bare soil.
Consistent: The project would provide a secondary vehicular access point at
Edinburgh Drive. This access point would be gated and restricted to use by
emergency vehicles only. The gate would be pad-locked and only accessible to
fire and safety personnel via keyed access during emergency events. Fire lanes
and turning radii would be designed in cooperation with local officials (i.e. the
Truckee Fire Protection District) and would be adequate for emergency and fire
equipment vehicles. Pavements would be designed to support loads created by
emergency vehicle traffic. Fire hydrants and fire suppression system connections
would be incorporated in locations accessible to fire equipment.
The landscaping as described in the Draft Design Guidelines has been designed to
reduce soil erosion and reduce risks associated with wildfire hazards, and pro-
mote trail safety. As discussed in Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials,
of this Draft EIR, the project (operational and construction) and cumulative im-
pacts related to wildfire hazards would be less than significant.
SAF-P4.4 Require new development to incorporate adequate emergency water
flow, emergency vehicle access and evacuation routes.
Consistent: As discussed in Section 4.15, Utilities and Service Systems, of this
Draft EIR, the project would be designed to include infrastructure to provide
adequate emergency water flow. Further, the project would incorporate emer-
gency vehicle access and evacuation routes. See SAF-P4.4.
SAF-P4.5 Continue to support the mitigation fee program for the Fire Protection
District, to ensure that the District is able to meet the future fire pro-
tection needs of the community as it grows.
Consistent: As discussed in Section 4.13, Public Services and Recreation, of this
Draft EIR, the project would be required to comply with the Town of Truckee
Standard Condition for Fire Protection Services and obtain a “Will Serve” letter
from the TFPD prior to the issuance of building permits. In addition, the pro-
ject applicant would pay all mandatory Development Impact Fees as determined
by the Fire Chief or his designee after consultation with the applicant.
SAF-P4.6 Support, as appropriate, efforts to implement the recommendations of
the 2005 Nevada County Fire Plan, and programs of Fire Safe Nevada
County.
Consistent: As discussed in Section 4.13, Public Services and Recreation, of this
Draft EIR, the project would not conflict with the 2005 Nevada County Fire
Plan and would further its intent to reduce the risk from wildland fires to life,
property and natural resources in the Nevada County.
SAF-P4.7 Ensure that the development review process addresses wildland fire
risk, including assessment of both construction- and project related fire
Consistent: As discussed in Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of
this Draft EIR, the project (operational and construction) and cumulative im-
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
LAND USE AND PLANNING
TABLE 4.10-1 TOWN OF TRUCKEE 2025 GENERAL PLAN POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)
4.10-40
Goal/Policy Consistency Discussion
risks particularly in areas of the Town most susceptible to fire hazards.
Cooperate with the TFFPD in reviewing fire safety plans and provi-
sions in new development, including aspects such as emergency access,
site design for maintenance of defensible space, and use of non-
combustible materials.
pacts related to wildfire hazards would be less than significant. See SAF-P4.2.
Source: Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
LAND USE AND PLANNING
4.10-41
i. RS-1.0 Zoning District
Chapter 18.08 regulates land uses in the residential zoning districts, estab-
lished by Section 18.06.020 (Zoning Districts Established). As described in
Development Code 18.08.020(B), Purposes of Residential Zoning Districts,
the RS (Single-Family Residential) zoning district applies to parcels with exist-
ing residential development and areas appropriate for new clustered develop-
ment. Allowable densities range from 0.5 to 4 du/acre. The RS zoning dis-
trict is consistent with the Residential (RES), Residential Cluster (RC), Open
Space Recreation (OSR), Public (Hospital/Office), and Tahoe Donner PC
land use classifications of the General Plan. The project would be required to
adhere to the development standards, including setbacks, in the Truckee De-
velopment Code, Chapter 18.08, Section 18.08.040 – Residential Zoning Dis-
trict General Development Standards, Table 2-4, Residential District General
Development Standards.
ii. OS Zoning District
Truckee Development Code Chapter 18.46 applies to residential develop-
ments and provides requirements for the reservation and maintenance of
permanent open space in conjunction with the development of private prop-
erty, to preserve and to protect the following areas:
¤ 100 year flood plains.
¤ Lakes and ponds.
¤ Slopes in excess of 30 percent.
¤ Environmentally-sensitive areas.
¤ Slopes in excess of 30 percent.
There are no 100-year flood plains, lakes, or ponds on the project site. Slopes
located on the project site generally range from one to ten percent, but some
isolated areas exceed 30 percent. In addition, the site is considered to be an
environmentally-sensitive area since it provides a wildlife corridor and habitat
for State listed plant and animal species, including special status and candidate
species, high fire hazard areas, large blocks of undeveloped forest, meadows,
riparian habitat and corridors, and wetlands. Under Chapter 18.46 the pro-
ject would be required to comply with Section 18.46.030, Cluster Develop-
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
LAND USE AND PLANNING
4.10-42
ment, Section 18.46.050, Minimum Open Space Requirements, and Section
18.46.060, Open Space Standards. Conformance to these sections would be
determined by Town staff during the merits evaluation of the project.
Chapter 18.214, Inclusionary Housing, establishes an inclusionary require-
ment for all residential development projects in Truckee. As required in the
General Plan, 15 percent of all new dwelling units in a residential develop-
ment project should be affordable units, and these units should be constructed
and completed no later than the related market rate units. Section 18.214.050,
Development Requirements, sets forth the specifics for the construction of
affordable units, such as location, construction timing, interior and exterior
quality and design, access to common amenities, and a minimum allowed av-
erage living area for residential subdivisions located (minimum living area
requirements are only applicable to the RM [Medium-Density Residential],
DRM [Downtown Residential Medium], and DRH [Downtown Residential
High] zoning districts). The interior and exterior quality and design of af-
fordable units should be compatible with the market-rate units in the neigh-
borhood and consistent with contemporary standards for new housing.
Building types for inclusionary units are subject to review and approval by
the review authority. Additionally, on-site inclusionary units should have
access to all on-site amenities available to market-rate units.
h. Nevada County General Plan and Zoning Code
The 5-acre portion of the project site in unincorporated Nevada County is
designated PD (Planned Development) and IDR (Interim Development Re-
serve) in the Nevada County General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, respective-
ly.
i. PD (Planned Development)
Under Policy 1.5(t), the Nevada County General Plan5 the PD district is in-
tended to designate planned developments in locations where a mix of uses is
desirable. The PD designation may allow a variety of land uses, including
5 Nevada County General Plan Volume I - Page 1-13 and 1-14.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
LAND USE AND PLANNING
4.10-43
single-family and multi-family residential, commercial, industrial, open space,
and/or other land uses consistent with the capability and constraints of the
land. The designation states that primary emphasis shall be placed on cluster-
ing intensive land uses to minimize impact on various natural and man-made
resources, minimize public health concerns, and minimize aesthetic concerns.
The designation also notes that such developments require a high degree of
accessibility to the arterial and major collector road system, and should have
internal vehicular and pedestrian circulation designed to provide safe and
convenient linkage between the various uses. A comprehensive master plan
for the entire site is required prior to approval of development.
Uses for Planned Developments shall be permitted as shown on the General
Plan Land Use Maps for each specific Planned Development designation.
Change in the specified area of the permitted uses, except for Open Space,
may be allowed to accommodate site-specific conditions identified in the
comprehensive master plan, provided that the cumulative change in area of
any permitted use does not exceed 5 percent.
ii. IDR (Interim Development Reserve)
The 'IDR' District is a Special Purpose District intended to be used as an in-
terim zoning district to reflect and reserve the development potential of prop-
erty designated as Planned Development and Special Development Area in
the Nevada County General Plan. It functions as a temporary holding zone
and reserves the development potential of the property until a Zoning Map
and a Comprehensive Master Plan and/or Specific Plan for the property has
been adopted consistent with Nevada County General Plan policies 1.5.t
(Planned Development) and 1.5.u (Special Development Area), and the prop-
erty is rezoned to permanent specific zoning districts consistent with the
above Plan(s).6
6 Nevada County Zoning Regulations, page 2-43 of Chapter II of the Land Use
and Development Code Adopted 10-23-07, Amended 07/12/11.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
LAND USE AND PLANNING
4.10-44
B. Existing Conditions
1. Existing Land Uses
a. Project Site
The proposed project site is currently undeveloped; however, a well-
developed network of unpaved access roads and trails is distributed through-
out the site. This network extends into adjacent lands on all sides of the
study area. The project site is accessed from the Glenshire/Devonshire sub-
division, and experiences unauthorized use year-round by nearby residents.
In the winter, the predominant use is for cross-country and backcountry ski-
ers, snowshoers, and snowmobile users. After the snow has melted, hikers,
mountain bikers, dirt bikers, off-road vehicles, and equestrians use the area
frequently. The topography of the site consists primarily of flat terrain, gen-
tly rolling hills and natural drainage cuts. The dominant vegetation on site is
Jeffery pines and sagebrush.
b. Surrounding Land Uses
The proposed project is primarily surrounded by developed single-family and
rural residential properties. These include large acreage properties located in
unincorporated Nevada County outside the Town limit, but within the
Town’s Sphere of Influence, to the north, east, and south include the Juniper
Hills and Martis Peak residential subdivisions. Suburban subdivisions within
the Town limit to the west of the project site are collectively referred to as
“Glenshire” and include the Glenshire, Devonshire, Cambridge Estates,
Elkhorn Ridge, and The Meadows subdivisions. The surrounding subdivi-
sions primarily comprise full-time residents.
The Glenshire area to the west of the site is within the RES (Residential) 1 to
2 du/acre General Plan land use designation and includes parcels zoned RS-X
(Residential Single-Family – No Further Subdivision), RS—1.0 (Residential
Single-Family – 1 du/acre), RR-X (Rural Residential (No Further Subdivi-
sion), REC (Recreation), and PF (Public Facilities). The 362-acre parcel adja-
cent to the eastern edge of the project site and the 320-acre parcel adjacent to
the northern edge of the project site in unincorporated Nevada County are
designated PD (Planned Development) under the Nevada County General
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
LAND USE AND PLANNING
4.10-45
Plan and zoned IDR (Interim Development Reserve). South of the proposed
project site are 20+-acre lots in unincorporated Nevada County zoned AG
(General Agriculture) and designated RUR-20 (Rural; 20-acre minimum par-
cel size) under the Nevada County General Plan.
C. Standards of Significance
The proposed project would have a significant impact with regard to land use
and planning if it would:
¤ Physically divide an established community.
¤ Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to
the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordi-
nance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmen-
tal effect.
¤ Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural com-
munity conservation plan.
D. Impact Discussion
1. Project Impacts
a. Physically divide an established community.
A significant impact may occur if a project were sufficiently large enough or
otherwise configured in such a way as to create a physical barrier or other
physical division within an established community. A typical example would
be a project which involved a continuous right-of-way, such as a roadway,
which would divide a community and impede access between parts of the
community. The project site is surrounded by areas that are developed with
single-family and rural residential subdivisions, and recreation and open space
land uses. The design of the subdivision, including layout of the 185 lots,
creation of the open space area, and connectivity to offsite trails would not
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
LAND USE AND PLANNING
4.10-46
create a physical barrier within the community or otherwise divide contigu-
ous land uses. Therefore, no impact would occur.
b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to
the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordi-
nance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmen-
tal effect.
Table 4.10-1 provides a detailed consistency analysis of the project in relation
to the General Plan. As noted in the table, the project was found to be con-
sistent with the majority of pertinent goals and policies; however, final con-
sistency will be made during the public review process.
According to the General Plan Guidelines published by the State Office of
Planning and Research, “An action, program, or project is consistent with the
General Plan if, considering all its aspects, it will further the objectives and
policies of the General Plan and not obstruct their attainment.” Therefore,
the standard for analysis used in the EIR is based on general agreement with
the policy language and furtherance of the policy intent (as determined by a
review of the policy context).
The project aims to integrate residential and recreation components with sur-
rounding residential developments on a site comprising informal trails, native
habitat and wildlife resources. The project’s 185 residential lots over approx-
imately 213 acres are within the limits set forth in the RES (Residential) 0.5 to
1 du/acre land use designation and the RS-1.0 Zoning District (Single-Family
Residential, density of 1 du/acre). The project’s approximately 176 acres of
public open space and natural habitat would exceed the 50 percent minimum
required by the Town and no residential development would occur in the
RC/OS (Resource Conservation/Open Space) land use designation and OS
Zoning District (Open Space). As illustrated in Table 4.10-1, the project
would be generally consistent with applicable policies of the Truckee General
Plan. As noted in Table 4.10-1, the proposed project would be inconsistent
with several traffic-related policies due to the significant and unavoidable im-
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
LAND USE AND PLANNING
4.10-47
pact at the Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection. (Please see Im-
pact TRANS-1 for more information on this impact.) The proposed project
would also be inconsistent with Policy H-P4.2 due to the amount of new in-
frastructure that would be required to implement the project. However, as
discussed in Table 4.10-1, all impacts associated with infrastructure and con-
struction activities were found to be less than significant or significant but
mitigable.
The additional 5 acres in unincorporated Nevada County designated PD
(Planned Development) and IDR (Interim Development Reserve) in the Ne-
vada County General Plan and Zoning Ordinance respectively would include
a mailbox cluster area and a new vehicular access road to serve the Project and
would not be considered a part of a larger planned development as it is cur-
rently surrounded by existing development.
The project would be consistent with Chapter 18.214, Inclusionary Housing,
of the Town’s Development Code. The project would provide 28 affordable
housing units, which account for 15 percent of the total housing units, meet-
ing the minimum number of the Town’s affordable housing requirement.
These affordable units would be completed no later than the market-rate
units, as described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Draft EIR. Pur-
suant to Section 18.214.050, Development Requirements, the interior and
exterior quality and design of affordable units would be compatible with the
market-rate units in the neighborhood and consistent with contemporary
standards for new housing. On-site affordable units would have access to all
on-site amenities available to market-rate units. With review and approval by
the review authority, the project would not conflict with the Town’s Devel-
opment Code.
Furthermore, the project’s open space would connect to the adjacent open
space on the project’s western border and provide a permanent wildlife corri-
dor by preserving the area as part of the future Canyon Springs Home Own-
er’s Association-owned and maintained open space/common area. The pro-
ject includes a publicly accessible 4.5-mile trail system made up of both 2-foot-
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
LAND USE AND PLANNING
4.10-48
wide soft-surface earthen trails and 12-foot-wide gravel trails. The proposed
publicly accessible trail system has been designed to make use of some of the
existing trail network and would connect to the existing trail network on
adjacent lands. The project would provide buffers, setbacks and screening as
well as clustering to reduce any conflicts with the surrounding residential land
uses. Therefore impacts related to General Plan and zoning consistency
would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.
c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural com-
munity conservation plan.
There are no Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation
Plans, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans
that have jurisdiction over the project site. Therefore, there would be no im-
pact resulting from conflicts to these types of plans from implementation of
the proposed project and no mitigation measures are warranted.
2. Cumulative Impacts
This section analyzes potential impacts to land use and planning that could
occur from a combination of the project with the Town buildout identified in
the 2025 General Plan and reasonably foreseeable projects in the surrounding
area. The geographic scope of this analysis is taken as the Town of Truckee
Sphere of Influence (SOI), as defined in the 2025 General Plan and reasonably
foreseeable projects in the surrounding area. Therefore, a cumulative impact
would be considered significant if, taken together with past, present, and rea-
sonably foreseeable projects in the Town of Truckee SOI and the Boca Quar-
ry project in Nevada County, the project would contribute to the physical
division of an established community and conflict with any applicable land
use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project,
or any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conserva-
tion plan.
As previously noted, the proposed project would not divide an established
community and does not conflict with a habitat management plan. The pro-
ject site and its vicinity are not located within an area covered by a Habitat
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
LAND USE AND PLANNING
4.10-49
Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan and, therefore,
would not contribute to any cumulative impacts to Habitat Conservation
Plans. Furthermore, the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan
land use designation and zoning district for the site, and is generally con-
sistent with the pertinent General Plan goals and policies, and applicable zon-
ing standards. The five-acre portion of the site in Nevada County also con-
forms to the County General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, the
project would not contribute to any cumulative land use impacts and this
impact would be less than significant.
E. Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Project and cumulative impacts related to land use and planning would be less
than significant and no mitigation measures are warranted.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
LAND USE AND PLANNING
4.10-50
4.11 NOISE
4.11-1
This section describes existing noise conditions in the project area, describes
criteria for determining the significance of noise impacts, and estimates the
likely noise that would result from implementation of the project. Where
appropriate, mitigation measures are recommended to reduce project-related
noise impacts to less-than-significant levels. A summary of the characteristics
of noise, vibration, and acoustical terms and definitions is provided in Ap-
pendix G, Noise Data, of this Draft EIR.
A. Fundamentals of Sound and Environmental Noise
Sound is technically described in terms of amplitude (loudness) and frequency
(pitch). The standard unit of sound amplitude measurement is the decibel
(dB). The decibel scale is a logarithmic scale that describes the physical inten-
sity of the pressure vibrations that make up any sound. The pitch of the
sound is related to the frequency of the pressure vibration. Since the human
ear is not equally sensitive to a given sound level at all frequencies, a special
frequency-dependent rating scale has been devised to relate noise to human
sensitivity. The A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) provides this compensation
by discriminating against frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivi-
ty of the human ear.
Noise, on the other hand, is typically defined as unwanted sound. A typical
noise environment consists of a base of steady ambient noise that is the sum
of many distant and indistinguishable noise sources. Superimposed on this
background noise is the sound from individual local sources. These can vary
from an occasional aircraft or train passing by to virtually continuous noise
from, for example, traffic on a major highway.
Several rating scales have been developed to analyze the adverse effect of
community noise on people. Because environmental noise fluctuates over
time, these scales consider that the effect of noise upon people is largely de-
pendent upon the total acoustical energy content of the noise, as well as the
time of day when the noise occurs. The Leq is a measure of ambient noise,
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
NOISE
4.11-2
while the Ldn and CNEL are measures of community noise. Each is applica-
ble to this analysis and defined as follows:
¤ Leq, the equivalent energy noise level, is the average acoustic energy con-
tent of noise for a stated period of time. Thus, the Leq of a time-varying
noise and that of a steady noise are the same if they deliver the same
acoustic energy to the ear during exposure. For evaluating community
impacts, this rating scale does not vary, regardless of whether the noise
occurs during the day or the night.
¤ Ldn, the Day-Night Average Level, is a 24-hour average Leq with a 10 dBA
“weighting” added to noise during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. to
account for noise sensitivity in the nighttime. The logarithmic effect of
these additions is that a 60 dBA 24 hour Leq would result in a measure-
ment of 66.4 dBA Ldn.
¤ CNEL, the Community Noise Equivalent Level, is a 24-hour average Leq
with a 5 dBA “weighting” during the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.
and a 10 dBA “weighting” added to noise during the hours of 10:00 p.m.
to 7:00 a.m. to account for noise sensitivity in the evening and nighttime,
respectively. The logarithmic effect of these additions is that a 60 dBA 24
hour Leq would result in a measurement of 66.7 dBA CNEL.
¤ Lmin is the minimum instantaneous noise level experienced during a given
period of time.
¤ Lmax is the maximum instantaneous noise level experienced during a given
period of time.
B. Regulatory Framework
The following section summarizes the regulatory framework related to noise,
including federal, State, and Town of Truckee plans, policies, and standards.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
NOISE
4.11-3
1. Federal Laws and Regulations
i. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
In 1972 Congress enacted the Noise Control Act. This Act authorized the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to publish descriptive data on
the effects of noise and establish levels of sound “requisite to protect the pub-
lic welfare with an adequate margin of safety.” These levels are separated into
health (hearing loss levels) and welfare (annoyance levels), as shown in Table
4.11-1. The U.S. EPA cautions that these identified levels are not standards
because they do not take into account the cost or feasibility of the levels.
For protection against hearing loss, 96 percent of the population would be
protected if sound levels are less than or equal to an Leq(24) of 70 Db. The
“(24)” signifies an Leq duration of 24 hours. The U.S. EPA activity and inter-
ference guidelines are designed to ensure reliable speech communication at
about 5 feet in the outdoor environment. For outdoor and indoor environ-
ments, interference with activity and annoyance should not occur if levels are
below 55 dBA and 45 dBA, respectively.
The noise effects associated with an outdoor Ldn of 55 dB are summarized in
Table 4.11-2. At 55 dB Ldn, 95 percent sentence clarity (intelligibility) may be
expected at 3.5 meters, and no community reaction. However, one percent of
the population may complain about noise at this level and 17 percent may
indicate annoyance.
2. State Laws and Regulations
The State of California has established regulations that help prevent adverse
impacts to occupants of buildings located near noise sources. Referred to as
the “State Noise Insulation Standard,” it requires buildings to meet perfor-
mance standards through design and/or building materials that would offset
any noise source in the vicinity of the receptor.
State regulations include requirements for the construction of new hotels,
motels, apartment houses, and dwellings other than detached single-family
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
NOISE
4.11-4
TABLE 4.11-1 SUMMARY OF EPA NOISE LEVELS
Effect Level Area
Hearing loss Leq(24) < 70 dB All areas.
Outdoor activity
interference and
annoyance
Ldn < 55 dB
Outdoors in residential areas and farms and
other outdoor areas where people spend
widely varying amounts of time and other
places in which quiet is a basis for use.
Leq(24) < 55 dB
Outdoor areas where people spend limited
amounts of time, such as school yards, play-
grounds, etc.
Indoor activity
interference and
annoyance
Leq < 45 dB Indoor residential areas.
Leq(24) < 45 dB Other indoor areas with human activities
such as schools, etc.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974. “Information on Levels of Environmen-
tal Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety.”
TABLE 4.11-2 SUMMARY OF HUMAN EFFECTS IN AREAS EXPOSED TO
55 DBA LDN
Type of Effects Magnitude of Effect
Speech – Indoors 100% sentence intelligibility (average) with a 5 dB margin
of safety.
Speech – Outdoors
100% sentence intelligibility (average) at 0.35 meters.
99%sentence intelligibility (average) at 1.0 meters.
95% sentence intelligibility (average) at 3.5 meters.
Average Community
Reaction
None evident; 7 dB below level of significant complaints
and threats of legal action and at least 16 dB below
“vigorous action.”
Complaints 1% dependent on attitude and other non-level related
factors.
Annoyance 17% dependent on attitude and other non-level related
factors.
Attitude Towards
Area Noise essentially the least important of various factors.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974. “Information on Levels of Environ-
mental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safe-
ty.”
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
NOISE
4.11-5
dwellings that are intended to limit the extent of noise transmitted into habit-
able spaces. These requirements are found in the California Code of Regula-
tions, Title 24 (known as the Building Standards Administrative Code), Part 2
(known as the California Building Code), Appendix Chapters 12 and 12A.
For limiting noise transmitted between adjacent dwelling units, the noise in-
sulation standards specify the extent to which walls, doors, and floor ceiling
assemblies must block or absorb sound. For limiting noise from exterior
noise sources, the noise insulation standards set an interior standard of 45
dBA CNEL in any habitable room with all doors and windows closed. In
addition, the standards require preparation of an acoustical analysis demon-
strating the manner in which dwelling units have been designed to meet this
interior standard, where such units are proposed in an area with exterior
noise levels greater than 60 dBA CNEL.
The State has also established land use compatibility guidelines for determin-
ing acceptable noise levels for specified land uses. The Town has adopted and
modified the State’s land use compatibility guidelines, as shown in Table
4.11-3, and as discussed below.
3. Local Regulations and Policies
a. Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan
The Town of Truckee addresses noise in the Noise Element of the Town of
Truckee 2025 General Plan. The Town’s policies extend the California Noise
Insulation Standards for interior noise levels attributable to exterior sources
to all proposed new single-family residences. The policies of the Noise (N)
Element that are applicable to the proposed project are provided in Table
4.11-4.
b. Town of Truckee Municipal Code
Title 18, Development Code, Chapter 18.44 establishes regulations for noise
level requirements of new development. Chapter 18.44 includes the follow-
ing ordinances governing stationary noise sources that are applicable to the
proposed project.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
NOISE
4.11-6
TABLE 4.11-3 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES
Land Use Category
Exterior Noise Exposure (CNEL, dB)a
55 60 65 70 75 80
Residential, Mobile Homes
Residential in Mixed Use
Development
Hospitals, Schools, Congregate Care
Office, Medical;
Light Industrial
Hotel; Commercial
Neighborhood Parks, RV Parks
Other Recreation; Community and
Regional Parks
NORMALLY ACCEPTABLE
Specified land use is compatible, assuming standard con-
struction practices are used.
NORMALLY UNACCEPTABLE
New land uses should be discouraged, but development
may be allowed after a detailed noise analysis is performed,
noise reduction and insulation features necessary to reduce
exterior noise to “normally acceptable” levels and interior
noise levels as appropriate are included in project design,
and the land uses are shown to serve the greater public
interests of the citizens of Truckee.
CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTABLE
New land uses may be allowed if detailed noise analysis is
performed and noise reduction and insulation features
necessary to reduce exterior noise levels to “normally
acceptable” levels and interior noise levels as appropriate
are included in the project design.
UNACCEPTABLE
New construction or development of these land uses should
generally not be permitted because mitigation is usually not
feasible.
Note: the Truckee-Tahoe Airport has separate guidelines addressing airport noise.
a Based on worst-case levels, both existing and 2025.
Source: Town of Truckee, 2007. Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan. Figure N-3.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
NOISE
4.11-7
TABLE 4.11-4 TOWN OF TRUCKEE GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES
RELEVANT TO NOISE
Policy or
Goal No. Goals and Policies
Goal N-1 Minimize community exposure to excessive noise by ensuring compati-
ble land uses relative to noise sources.
N-P1.1
Allow new development only if consistent with the ground trans-
portation noise compatibility guidelines illustrated in Figure N-3
[reference Table 4.11-] and the policies of this [the Noise] Element.
Noise measurements used in establishing compatibility shall be
measured in dBA CNEL and based on worst-case noise levels,
either existing or future.
N-P1.2
Require new development to mitigate exterior noise to “normally
acceptable” levels in outdoor areas where quiet is a benefit, such as
in the backyards of single-family homes.
N-P1.3
Enforce the California Noise Insulation Standards for interior
noise levels attributable to exterior sources for all proposed new
single- and multi-family residences.
Goal N-2 Address noise issues through the planning and permitting process.
N-P2.1 Require mitigation of all significant noise impacts as a condition of
project approval.
N-P2.2
Require preparation of a noise analysis/acoustical study, which is
to include recommendations for mitigation, for all proposed pro-
jects which may result in potentially significant noise impacts to
nearby noise sensitive land uses such as residences.
N-P2.5
Require the application of the provisions in the California Build-
ing Code Appendix Chapter II, Sections 1208A.8: Exterior Sound
Transmission Control, to apply to all new single-family residences.
Goal N-3
Reduce noise levels from sources such as domestic uses, construction
and car stereos, and from mobile sources, including motor vehicle
traffic and aircraft operations.
N-P3.1
Enforce provisions of the Municipal Noise Ordinance, which lim-
its maximum permitted noise levels that cross property lines and
impact adjacent land uses.
N-P3.2 Regulate noise from non-emergency construction activities
through the Municipal Noise Ordinance.
N-P3.13
Require the following standard construction noise control
measures to be included as requirements at construction sites in
order to minimize construction noise impacts.
¤ Equip all internal combustion engine driven equipment with
intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition and ap-
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
NOISE
TABLE 4.11-4 TOWN OF TRUCKEE GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES
RELEVANT TO NOISE (CONTINUED)
4.11-8
Policy or
Goal No. Goals and Policies
propriate for the equipment.
¤ Locate stationary noise generating equipment as far as possible
from sensitive receptors when sensitive receptors adjoin or are
near a construction project area.
¤ Utilize “quiet” air compressors and other stationary noise gen-
erating equipment where appropriate technology exists.
¤ The project sponsor shall designate a “disturbance coordinator”
who would be responsible for responding to any local com-
plaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator
will determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting
too early, bad muffler, etc.) and will require that reasonable
measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented.
The project sponsor shall also post a telephone number for ex-
cessive noise complaints in conspicuous locations in the vicinity
of the project site. Additionally, the project sponsor shall send
a notice to neighbors in the project vicinity with information
on the construction schedule and the telephone number for
noise complaints.
Source: Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan.
¤ 18.44.040 – Exterior Noise Standards: It shall be unlawful for any per-
son, at any location within the Town, to create any noise or to allow the
creation of any noise on property leased, occupied, owned, or otherwise
controlled by the person which does not comply with the provisions of
this Section, unless the provisions of either Sections 18.44.050 (Residen-
tial Interior Noise Standards) or 18.44.070 (Exceptions), below have been
met.
A. Exterior Levels: Exterior noise levels, when measured at any receiv-
ing church, commercial, hospital, public library, residential or school
property, do not conform to the provisions of this Section when
they exceed the noise level standards established by Table 3-8, which
has been reproduced in this Draft EIR as Table 4.11-5 below.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
NOISE
4.11-9
TABLE 4.11-5 NOISE STANDARD BY RECEIVING LAND USE
Cumulative
Number of Minutes
in Any Hour
Noise Level Standards, dBA
Day – 7:00 a.m.
to 10:00 p.m.
Night – 10:00 p.m.
to 7:00 a.m.
Hospital, Library, Religious Institutions, Residential, or School Uses
30a 55 50
15 60 55
5 65 60
1 70 65
0 75 70
Commercial Uses
30 65 60
15 70 65
5 75 70
1 80 75
0 85 80
a For example, this means the measured noise level may not exceed 55 dBA for more than 30
minutes out of any one hour time period.
Source: Town of Truckee, 2011. Municipal Code, Title 18, Development Code, Chapter 18.44,
Table 3-8.
B. Ambient Noise Level Adjustment: In the event the measured ambi-
ent noise level exceeds the applicable noise level standard in any cate-
gory above, the applicable standards shall be adjusted to equal the
ambient noise level. For example, if the applicable noise level stand-
ard is 60 dB(A) and the ambient noise level is 63 dB(A), the applica-
ble noise level standard would be adjusted to 63 dB(A). In these cas-
es, a use would not exceed the applicable noise level standard if it did
not increase the ambient noise level by more than 3.0 dB(A) when
T OWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
NOISE
4.11-10
the ambient noise level is between 60 and 65 dB(A) or by more than
1.5 dB(A) when the ambient noise level is greater than 65 dB(A).
H. Sensitive Land Uses: Whenever a use is proposed on a parcel where
the expected noise levels generated by the use, when measured at any
receiving church, hospital, public library, residential, or school prop-
erty, may exceed the noise level standards established by Table 3-8
(reference Table 4.11-5), the land use permit application shall include
an acoustical analysis of the effect of the noise generated by the use
on the sensitive land use property. An acoustical analysis shall also
be required when a commercial or industrial loading dock or area is
located within 300 feet of a sensitive use. The acoustical analysis
shall identify appropriate mitigation measures that reduce exterior
noise levels to acceptable levels established by Table 3-8 (reference
Table 4.11-5). These mitigation measures shall be incorporated into
the design, construction, and operation of the use.
I. Mitigation: Reasonable noise mitigation measures including building
setbacks, alternative site design techniques, and alternative building
orientation layouts shall be employed in lieu of sound walls to miti-
gate noise impacts. Sound walls may be used if there are no other
reasonable mitigation measures available or all reasonable mitigation
measures do not satisfactorily reduce noise levels to acceptable levels.
The Municipal Code, Title 18, Development Code, further includes ordi-
nances governing mobile and stationary noise sources that are applicable to
the proposed project as outlined below.
¤ 18.44.050 - Residential Interior Noise Standards: Single-family and multi-
family residential development shall be designed and constructed to com-
ply with the interior noise standards of this Section.
A. Interior Noise Standard: Whenever a new single-family or multi-
family dwelling unit is proposed on a parcel where the existing exte-
rior ambient noise level may exceed 60 dB(A) CNEL, the land use
permit application shall include an acoustical analysis showing the
dwelling unit has been designed to limit intruding noise to an interi-
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
NOISE
4.11-11
or CNEL of 45 dB(A), in compliance with California Code of Regu-
lations Title 24, Part 2.
B. Residential Development Affected by Aircraft Noise: Land use per-
mit applications for residential structures proposed within the Air-
port 55 dB(A) CNEL contour shall comply with the provisions of
Section 18.64.060 (Airport Noise Zones).
C. Noise Mitigation Measures: Whenever interior noise levels may ex-
ceed 45 dB(A) CNEL, residential developments shall incorporate the
following noise mitigation measures, where appropriate:
1. Increase the distance between the noise source and the receiver;
2. Locate bedrooms on the side of the structure away from major
public rights-of-way; and/or
3. Locate land uses not sensitive to noise (e.g., garages, maintenance
facilities, parking lots, utility areas, etc.) between the noise
source and the receiver.
D. Noise Barrier Standards: The minimum acceptable surface weight for
a noise barrier is four pounds per square foot (equivalent to three-
fourths inch plywood). Noise barriers shall interrupt the line-of-
sight between the noise source and the receiver. The barrier shall be
of a continuous material which is resistant to sound and may includ-
ing the following:
1. Earth berm or a combination of earth berm with concrete block;
or,
2. Masonry block; or,
3. Precast concrete.
¤ 18.44.070 – Exceptions.
A. Construction: The provisions of this section shall not apply to noise
sources associated with non-single family residential construction,
provided the activities do not take place before 7:00 a.m. or after 9:00
p.m. on any day except Sunday, or before 9:00 a.m. or after 6:00 p.m.
on Sunday. The review authority may impose further limitations on
T OWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
NOISE
4.11-12
the hours of construction or other measures to mitigate significant
noise impacts on sensitive uses.
G. Public Transportation Facilities. The provisions of this section shall
not apply to any airports, railroad facilities including but not limited
to trains, rolling stock, and railroad equipment, publicly owned
roads and rights-of-way, or other similar facilities.
C. Existing Conditions
The following section describes the existing noise environment and identifies
primary noise sources in each of the component areas of the proposed subdi-
vision area.
1. Existing Conditions
The project noise environment can be characterized as a typical rural envi-
ronment and has not changed substantially in the last several years. There-
fore, the ambient noise measurements conducted in 2006 by J.C. Brennan &
Associates, Inc. are an accurate representation of the existing noise environ-
ment in the project vicinity. The results of their noise monitoring effort are
documented in the Canyon Springs Subdivision Draft EIR, dated April 2007.1
According to their documentation, in May 2006, continuous 24-hour noise
level measurements were conducted on the proposed project site. In addition,
short-term noise level measurements were also conducted on the site and in
the vicinity of the site at four locations. Figure 4.11-1 shows the locations of
all noise measurement sites.
Table 4.11-6 shows the results of the noise measurement data. An analysis of
this data was used to determine the overall daily noise levels on the project
1 The 2007 Draft EIR prepared for the project site by Quad Knopf was com-
pleted and comments were provided by the public and interested agencies; however,
no Final EIR was prepared and the 2007 Draft EIR was not certified. Comments
submitted on the 2007 Draft EIR were taken into consideration for the preparation of
this Draft EIR.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
NOISE
NOISE MEASUREMENT MAP
FIGURE 4.11-1
Source: SCO Planning, Engineering & Surveying, April 2011.
J.C. Brennan & Associates, 2006 / Quad Knopf, 2007.4000 800 FeetNORTH
R
R
Martis Peak Road
Main Access Point
Edinburgh Drive
Gated Access
Short term noise
measurement site
24 hour continuous noise
measurement siteA#
A 1
2
3
4
T OWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
NOISE
4.11-14
TABLE 4.11-6 AMBIENT NOISE MONITORING RESULTS, MAY 23-24, 2006
Site
Measured
Ldn/CNEL
(dBA)
Average Hourly Daytime
(7:00 am – 10:00 pm)
Leq
(dBA)
Lmax
(dBA)
A 45.8 45.4 51.4
1 NA 41.6 48.4
2 NA 42.6 56.1
3 NA 40.1 49.6
4 NA 40.3 52.9
Source: J.C. Brennan & Associates, Inc., April 2007.
site for comparison to the Town’s land use compatibility standards. Based
upon the noise measurements, the proposed project site and surrounding area
can be characterized as fairly quiet with documented noise levels ranging
from 40 dBA to 45 dBA Leq, and 45.8 dBA CNEL. Existing noise sources
included distant trains, local roadway traffic, and aircraft operations at the
Tahoe Truckee Airport.
2. Existing Aircraft Noise Sources
While aircraft noise is occasionally audible within the project vicinity, the
project does not lie within the noise influence area of the Truckee-Tahoe Air-
port. Truckee-Tahoe Airport is located over 3.5 miles southwest of the pro-
ject site. According to the future airport noise contours (Figure 2B of the
Truckee Tahoe Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan)2 the project site would lie
outside of the 55 dBA CNEL airport noise contour. The noise contours rep-
resent the points beyond which airport-related noise would attenuate to be-
low the indicated noise level. These contours reflect generalized noise projec-
tions, and do not take into account site specific topography, natural vegeta-
tion, site orientation or other localized factors.
2 Truckee Tahoe Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, December 2, 2004.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
NOISE
4.11-15
3. Existing Traffic Noise Sources
Vehicular traffic is the primary noise source in the project vicinity. The exist-
ing traffic noise levels along select roadway segments in the study area are
listed in Table 4.11-7. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) High-
way Traffic Noise Prediction Model (RD-77-108) was used to evaluate traffic-
related noise conditions along segments of Glenshire Drive and Martis Peak
Road in the project vicinity. These existing roadways would handle all the
trips that access the project site. The project access drive as well as all internal
roadways would be constructed with implementation of the project. The
traffic noise model requires various data inputs, including traffic volumes,
vehicle mix, vehicle speed, and roadway geometry to compute typical equiva-
lent noise levels during daytime, evening, and nighttime hours. Traffic vol-
umes were obtained from the traffic study prepared for the project by LSC
Transportation Consultants, Inc.3 The resultant noise levels were weighted
and summed over 24-hour periods to determine the CNEL values. Existing
noise levels along these roadway segments (at 50 feet from the centerline of
the outermost travel lane) range from 51.7 dBA CNEL to 64.9 dBA CNEL.
The traffic noise model printouts are included in Appendix I, Traffic Data, of
this Draft EIR.
D. Standards of Significance
The proposed project would have a significant impact with regard to noise if
it would result in the following:
¤ Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local General Plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies.
¤ Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration
or groundborne noise levels.
3 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., Canyon Springs Traffic Impact Analysis,
2011 (See Appendix I of this Draft EIR).
T OWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
NOISE
4.11-16
TABLE 4.11-7 EXISTING TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS
Roadway
Segment ADTa
Center-
line to 70
CNEL
(Feet)
Center-
line to 65
CNEL
(Feet)
Center-
line to 60
CNEL
(Feet)
CNEL (dBA)
50 Feet
From
Centerline
of Outer-
Most Lane
Glenshire Drive –
Old State Route 40
to Dorchester Drive
6,300 < 50 b 55 118 64.9
Glenshire Drive –
Dorchester Drive to
Somerset Drive
4,000 < 50 < 50 87 62.9
Glenshire Drive –
Somerset Drive to
Martis Peak Road
2,900 < 50 < 50 70 61.5
Glenshire Drive –
Martis Peak Road to
Hirschdale Road
3,100 < 50 < 50 74 61.8
Glenshire Drive –
Hirschdale Road to
I–80 ramps
3,200 < 50 < 50 75 61.9
Martis Peak Road –
east of Glenshire
Drive
300 < 50 < 50 < 50 49.0
a Average Daily Traffic.
b Traffic noise within 50 feet of the roadway centerline requires site-specific analysis.
Source: LSA Associates Inc., August 2011.
¤ A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the project.
¤ A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in
the project vicinity above levels existing without the project.
¤ For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public
use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
NOISE
4.11-17
¤ For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project
expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels.
E. Impact Discussion
This section explains what the project’s potential impacts are, and it tells
which impacts would actually occur, and why.
1. Project Impacts
a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local General Plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies.
i. Traffic Noise Impacts.
The FHWA highway traffic noise prediction model (FHWA RD-77-108) was
used to evaluate traffic-related noise conditions in the vicinity of the project
area. The resultant noise levels were weighed and summed over a 24-hour
period in order to determine the CNEL values. The existing and future traf-
fic volumes for roadway segments in the project vicinity were used in the
traffic noise impact analysis. Table 4.11-8 shows the 2011 Plus Project Traffic
Noise Levels along modeled roadway segments in the project area. Tables
4.11-9 and 4.11-10 show the predicted traffic noise levels for the year 2031
without and with the project, respectively.
A significant impact would occur for proposed on-site noise sensitive land
uses if the cumulative (2031) traffic noise levels would exceed the Town’s
normally acceptable standards for new residential development according to
land use shown in Table 4.11-3. Ambient noise levels greater than 60 dBA
CNEL are in excess of the Town’s standards for normally acceptable noise
environments for new residential development, such as that proposed under
the project.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
NOISE
4.11-18
TABLE 4.11-8 2011 PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS
Roadway Segment ADTa
Centerline to
70 CNEL
(Feet)
Centerline to
65 CNEL
(Feet)
Centerline to
60 CNEL
(Feet)
50 Feet from
Centerline of
Outermost Lane
CNEL (dBA)
Increase from
Existing
Conditions
Glenshire Drive – Old State Route 40 to Dorchester Drive 7,000 < 50 b 59 126 65.3 0.4
Glenshire Drive – Dorchester Drive to Somerset Drive 4,800 < 50 < 50 98 63.7 0.8
Glenshire Drive – Somerset Drive to Martis Peak Road 3,900 < 50 < 50 86 62.8 1.3
Glenshire Drive – Martis Peak Road to Hirschdale Road 4,700 < 50 < 50 97 63.6 1.8
Glenshire Drive – Hirschdale Road to I-80 ramps 4,800 < 50 < 50 98 63.7 1.8
Martis Peak Road – East of Glenshire Drive 2,800 < 50 < 50 < 50 58.7 9.7
Project Main Access Road – South of Martis Peak Road 2,800 < 50 < 50 < 50 55.2 NA
Note: NA = Not applicable as there is no existing roadway to which to make a comparison.
a Average Daily Traffic.
b Traffic noise within 50 feet of the roadway centerline requires site-specific analysis.
Source: LSA Associates Inc., August 2011.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
NOISE
4.11-19
TABLE 4.11-9 2031 WITHOUT PROJECT TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS
Roadway Segment ADT
Centerline to
70 CNEL
(Feet)
Centerline to
65 CNEL
(Feet)
Centerline to
60 CNEL
(Feet)
CNEL (dBA)
50 Feet from
Centerline of
Outermost Lane
Glenshire Drive - Old State Route 40 to Dorchester Drive 8,600 < 50 67 145 66.2
Glenshire Drive - Dorcester Drive to Somerset Drive 5,600 < 50 51 109 64.4
Glenshire Drive - Somerset Drive to Martis Peak Road 3,100 < 50 < 50 74 61.8
Glenshire Drive - Martis Peak Road to Hirschdale Road 3,100 < 50 < 50 74 61.8
Glenshire Drive - Hirschdale Road to I-80 ramps 5,200 < 50 < 50 104 64.0
Martis Peak Road - east of Glenshire Drive 300 < 50 < 50 < 50 49.0
Project Main Access Road - south of Martis Peak Road NA NA NA NA NA
Source: LSA Associates Inc., August 2011.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
NOISE
4.11-20
TABLE 4.11-10 2031 PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS
Roadway Segment ADT
Centerline to
70 CNEL
(Feet)
Centerline to
65 CNEL
(Feet)
Centerline to
60 CNEL
(Feet)
50 Feet from
Centerline of
Outermost Lane
CNEL (dBA)
Increase from
Without Project
Conditions
Glenshire Drive - Old State Route 40 to Dorchester Drive 9,400 < 50 72 154 66.6 0.4
Glenshire Drive - Dorchester Drive to Somerset Drive 6,500 < 50 56 120 65.0 0.6
Glenshire Drive - Somerset Drive to Martis Peak Road 4,000 < 50 < 50 87 62.9 1.1
Glenshire Drive - Martis Peak Road to Hirschdale Road 4,700 < 50 < 50 97 63.6 1.8
Glenshire Drive - Hirschdale Road to I-80 ramps 6,700 < 50 57 123 65.1 1.1
Martis Peak Road - east of Glenshire Drive 6,700 < 50 < 50 81 62.5 13.5
Project Main Access Road - south of Martis Peak Road 6,700 < 50 < 50 < 50 59.0 NA
Source: LSA Associates Inc., August 2011.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
NOISE
4.11-21
Although the traffic analysis did not generate vehicle trip calculations for the
project’s access (and primary internal) road, for the purposes of this analysis
(and to provide an environmentally conservative analysis) it was assumed that
the total (background plus project) trips for Martis Peak Road would also be
the maximum trips for the primary access road. Per the Town Municipal
Code Section 18.05.020, the speed limit on all Town local streets is 25 miles
per hour. Thus, using the same traffic volume as Martis Peak Road but with
a traffic speed of 25 mph, the resulting traffic noise levels for the year 2031
would range up to 59 dBA CNEL at 50 feet from the centerline of the outer-
most travel lane of the project’s access and primary internal road. This noise
level is within the Town’s “normally acceptable” range for new residential
development. Therefore, traffic noise levels would have a less-than-significant
impact in the project area.
The traffic noise model printouts for all calculations, including those for the
project’s access road, are included in Appendix I of this Draft EIR.
ii. Stationary Sources Noise Impacts.
Proposed project on-site uses could contain stationary noise sources such as
mechanical equipment (e.g. air conditioning and heating units) and landscap-
ing and maintenance equipment. The use of these types of equipment would
be potential point sources of noise that could affect noise-sensitive receptors
in the project vicinity. However, proposed residential units would be located
over 500 feet from the closest existing noise sensitive receptors. At this dis-
tance, noise levels from periodic use of project-related stationary equipment
would not result in a perceptible increase in ambient noise levels, nor would
they result in an exceedance of the existing ambient noise levels at nearby
sensitive land uses. Therefore, noise levels from project-related stationary
noise sources would result in a less-than-significant impact on off-site sensitive
receptors.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
NOISE
4.11-22
b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration
or groundborne noise levels.
Human perception to vibration starts at levels as low as 67 VdB and some-
times lower. Annoyance due to vibration in residential settings starts at ap-
proximately 70 VdB. In extreme cases, excessive groundborne vibration has
the potential to cause structural damage to buildings. The damage threshold
for buildings considered of particular historical significance or that are partic-
ularly fragile structures is approximately 96 VdB; the damage threshold for
other structures is 100 VdB.4
Common sources of ground-borne vibration include construction activities
such as blasting, pile driving, and operating heavy earth moving equipment.
However, it is anticipated that construction of the project will not employ
pile driving as a construction method. Typical groundborne vibration levels
measured at a distance of 50 feet from heavy construction equipment in full
operation, such as bulldozers or other heavy tracked equipment, range up to
approximately 94 VdB. This is below the damage threshold for historic or
fragile buildings. Furthermore, compliance with all of Truckee’s established
standard construction noise control measures would reduce construction-
related groundborne vibration impacts to a less-than-significant level.
No permanent noise sources that would expose persons to excessive ground
borne vibration or noise levels are proposed as part of the project. Therefore,
implementation of the proposed project would have a less-than-significant im-
pact in the permanent exposure of persons within or around the project site
to excessive ground borne vibration.
c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the project.
A significant impact on off-site sensitive receptors would occur if project re-
lated traffic noise levels would result in a substantial permanent increase of
5 dBA if the existing ambient noise level is below 60 dBA, or an increase of
4 Harris, C.M., 1998. Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
NOISE
4.11-23
3 dBA or greater if the ambient noise level is between 60 and 65 dBA, or an
increase by more than 1.5 dBA if the ambient noise level in the project vicini-
ty is greater than 65 dBA.
Modeling results indicate that only one modeled roadway segment would
experience an increase in project-related traffic noise levels of more than
5 dBA. The roadway segment of Martis Peak Road east of Glenshire Drive
would experience traffic noise levels of up to 58.7 dBA CNEL under the 2011
plus project traffic conditions, representing an increase of 9.7 dBA compared
to conditions without the project. Under 2031 with project traffic condi-
tions, this roadway segment would experience traffic noise levels of up to 62.5
dBA CNEL, representing an increase of 13.4 dBA compared to conditions
without the project. However, there are no existing sensitive land uses along
this roadway segment. The closest residential property to this roadway seg-
ment is located over 100 feet west of Martis Peak Road, the residential prop-
erty in the southwest quadrant of the Glenshire Drive and Martis Peak Road
intersection. At a distance of 100 feet, noise levels from traffic on Martis Peak
Road would attenuate to below 57 dBA CNEL. However, the closest resi-
dential property fronts Glenshire Drive and is exposed to noise levels from
traffic on Glenshire Drive of up to 61.5 dBA CNEL under existing condi-
tions. Therefore, noise levels from traffic on Martis Peak Road would not
result in an increase in traffic noise levels at this closest sensitive receptor.
Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would result in a less-than-
significant permanent increase in ambient noise levels impacting any sensitive
land use in the project vicinity.
d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in
the project vicinity above levels existing without the project.
Noise levels from grading and other construction activities associated with
build out of the project may range up to 91 dBA Lmax at the closest off-site
sensitive receptors for very limited times when construction occurs near the
project’s boundary. Short-term noise impacts would result from excavation,
grading, and erecting of buildings within the project area during construction
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
NOISE
4.11-24
of proposed projects. Construction-related short-term noise levels would be
higher than existing ambient noise levels in the project area but would no
longer occur once construction is completed.
Two types of short-term noise impacts could occur during construction with-
in the project area. First, construction crew commutes and the transport of
construction equipment and materials to construction sites within the project
area would incrementally increase noise levels on access roads leading to the
sites. Although there would be a relatively high single-event noise exposure
potential causing intermittent noise nuisance (passing trucks at 50 feet would
generate up to a maximum of 86 dBA Lmax), the effect on longer term (hour-
ly or daily) ambient noise levels would be small. Therefore, short-term con-
struction related impacts associated with worker commute and equipment
transport to construction sites within the project area would be less than sig-
nificant.
The second type of short-term noise impact is related to noise generated dur-
ing excavation, grading, and erection of buildings on sites within the project
area. Construction is completed in discrete steps, each of which has its own
mix of equipment and, consequently, its own noise characteristics. These
various sequential phases would change the character of the noise generated
and, therefore, the noise levels surrounding the site as construction progress-
es. Despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, simi-
larities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow con-
struction related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase. Table 4.11-11
lists typical construction equipment noise levels recommended for noise im-
pact assessments, based on a distance of 50 feet between the equipment and a
noise receptor. The site preparation phase, which includes excavation and
grading of the site, tends to generate the highest noise levels, because the nois-
iest construction equipment is earth moving equipment. Earth moving
equipment includes excavating machinery such as backhoes, bulldozers, drag-
lines, and front loaders. Earth moving and compacting equipment includes
compactors, scrapers, and graders. Typical operating cycles for these
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
NOISE
4.11-25
TABLE 4.11-11 TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT MAXIMUM NOISE
LEVELS
Type of Equipment
Range of Maximum
Sound Levels
(dBA at 50 ft)
Suggested
Maximum Sound
Levels for Analysis
(dBA at 50 ft)
Pile Drivers 81 to 96 93
Rock Drills 83 to 99 96
Jackhammers 75 to 85 82
Pneumatic Tools 78 to 88 85
Pumps 68 to 80 77
Scrapers 83 to 91 87
Haul Trucks 83 to 94 88
Electric Saws 66 to 72 70
Portable Generators 71 to 87 80
Rollers 75 to 82 80
Dozers 85 to 90 88
Tractors 77 to 82 80
Front-End Loaders 86 to 90 88
Hydraulic Backhoe 81 to 90 86
Hydraulic Excavators 81 to 90 86
Graders 79 to 89 85
Air Compressors 76 to 89 85
Trucks 81 to 87 85
Source: Bolt, Beranek & Newman, 1987. Noise Control for Buildings and Manufacturing Plants.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
NOISE
4.11-26
types of construction equipment may involve 1 or 2 minutes of full-power
operation followed by three or four minutes at lower power settings.
During the construction phase, equipment such as bulldozers, scrapers, load-
ers, graders, water trucks, and other trucks will be used. As shown in Table
4.11-11, the typical maximum noise level generated by backhoes is assumed to
be 86 dBA Lmax at 50 feet from the operating equipment. The maximum
noise level generated by bulldozers is approximately 88 dBA Lmax at 50 feet.
The maximum noise level generated by trucks is approximately 85 dBA Lmax
at 50 feet from these vehicles. Each doubling of the sound sources with equal
strength would increase the noise level by 3 dBA. Assuming each piece of
construction equipment operates at some distance apart from the other
equipment, the worst-case combined noise level during the construction phase
would be 91 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet from an active construction ar-
ea.
The closest existing sensitive receptors would be the residential land uses lo-
cated along the east end of Edinburgh Drive near the southwest portion of
the project area. These residences would potentially be exposed to construc-
tion noise levels of up to 91 dBA Lmax during construction of the extension of
Edinburgh Drive (for the emergency access roadway) would occur. Other
noise sensitive receptors would include residential land uses along Regency
Circle and a portion of Courtney Lane that would be exposed to noise during
installation of the off-site water main. These residences would potentially be
exposed to construction noise levels of up to 91 dBA Lmax if multiple pieces of
earth moving equipment operate simultaneously on the roadway adjacent to
their property.
The operation of heavy earth moving equipment related to construction of
the proposed project would result in substantial temporary or periodic in-
crease in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project. However, through mandatory regulatory compliance
with the Town’s standards including Town’s General Plan Policy P3.13 and
Development Code Section 18.44.070, project related noise impacts resulting
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
NOISE
4.11-27
from construction would be less than significant and no mitigation measures
are required.
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public
use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels.
Aircraft related noise would be audible at noise sensitive land uses on the pro-
ject site. However, the project site is located approximately 3.5 miles from
the Truckee-Tahoe Airport, and lies well outside of the 55 dBA CNEL air-
port noise contour. Therefore, due to the distance from and the flight path
orientation to the airport, aircraft related noise impacts would have a less-
than-significant impact on noise sensitive development within the project area.
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project
expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels.
The Truckee-Tahoe Airport, which is the closest airport, is located approxi-
mately 3.5 miles southwest of the project site. The proposed project would
not be located in an airport land use plan or within 2 miles of a private air-
strip. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would have a less-
than-significant impact on the exposure of persons within the project site to
excessive aircraft-related noise levels.
2. Cumulative Impacts
This section analyzes potential noise impacts that could occur from a combi-
nation of the project with the Town buildout identified in the Town of Truck-
ee 2025 General Plan and reasonably foreseeable projects in the surrounding
area. The geographic scope of this analysis is taken as the Town of Truckee
sphere of influence (SOI), as defined in the Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan
and reasonably foreseeable projects in the surrounding area. Therefore, as
described in Chapter 4, Environmental Evaluation, of this Draft EIR, the
Boca Quarry Expansion project in Nevada County, when considered with
the project and the Town buildout of the Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
NOISE
4.11-28
could result in cumulative environmental impacts. The Boca Quarry Expan-
sion project site is approximately 2.5 miles northeast of the project site and
north of Interstate 80 and noise generated from this project would not impact
the project area.
Cumulative noise impacts associated with implementation of the proposed
project would primarily result from project-related traffic noise sources. As
shown in the discussion above in Section E, Traffic Noise Impacts, implemen-
tation of the proposed project would result in projected traffic noise levels
along the project’s primary access road of up to 59 dBA CNEL at 50 feet
from the centerline of the outermost travel lane under future 2031 conditions
with the project which is within the Town’s “normally acceptable” range for
new residential development. Therefore, no on-site significant exterior noise
impacts would occur from cumulative (2031) traffic noise levels.
A cumulative impact would also occur if there would be any increase in am-
bient noise levels at existing sensitive receptors in the project vicinity that are
currently exposed to noise levels above the Town’s conditionally acceptable
threshold for that type of land use. As discussed above, the roadway segment
of Martis Peak Road east of Glenshire Drive would experience traffic noise
levels of up to 58.7 dBA CNEL under the 2011 plus project traffic conditions,
representing an increase of 9.7 dBA compared to conditions without the pro-
ject. Under 2031 with project traffic conditions, which include the Bocca
Quarry project, this roadway segment would experience traffic noise levels of
up to 62.5 dBA CNEL, representing an increase of 13.4 dBA compared to
conditions without the project. However, there are no existing sensitive land
uses along this roadway segment. Therefore, no existing traffic noise levels
exceed the Town’s conditionally acceptable threshold of 65 dBA CNEL for
residential land uses. Therefore, the project would have a less-than-significant
increase in traffic noise levels under cumulative conditions with implementa-
tion of the proposed project.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
NOISE
4.11-29
F. Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Project and cumulative impacts related to noise would be less than significant
and no mitigation measures are required.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
NOISE
4.11-30
4.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING
4.12-1
This section discusses the existing population and housing conditions in the
project area and related impacts that could result from implementation of the
proposed project. The section relies on data from the 2007 – 2014 Housing
Element of the Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan. This Housing Element
was adopted on October 20, 2009. The primary data sources used to prepare
this element include the 1990 U.S. Census, the 2000 U.S. Census, and infor-
mation published by the California Department of Finance (DOF) and the
Sierra Planning Organization (SPO). This section also includes data from the
2010 U.S. Census.
A. Regulatory Setting
1. Federal Laws and Regulations
There are no specific federal regulations applicable to population, housing,
and employment.
2. State Laws and Regulations
There are no specific State regulations applicable to population, housing, and
employment.
3. Local Regulations and Policies
a. Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan
The Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan includes goals and policies for the
preservation, conservation, improvement, and production of housing within
the Town of Truckee. Table 4.12-1 lists these goals and policies of the 2007-
2014 Housing Element.
B. Existing Conditions
This section describes existing population, employment, and housing condi-
tions in the Town of Truckee.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
POPULATION AND HOUSING
4.12-2
TABLE 4.12-1 TRUCKEE GENERAL PLAN POLICIES PERTAINING TO
POPULATION AND HOUSING
Policy or
Goal No. Goals and Policies
Goal H-1 Ensure an adequate supply of housing to meet the housing needs of all
segments of the community.
H-P1.1 Provide adequate sites for the production of new residential units
to meet the needs of existing and future residents.
Goal H-4 Balance the need and provision of housing in the community with its
impacts on the environment and needed public facilities and services.
H-P4.1
Encourage residential design that promotes energy efficiency and
sustainable building practices and reduces greenhouse gas emis-
sions.
H-P4.2
Encourage residential development that reduces infrastructure and
other development costs, preserves and enhances important envi-
ronmental resources, and maintains important areas as open space.
Source: Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan.
1. Housing Units
In 2000, the U.S. Census Bureau reported 9,787 housing units in Truckee,
which was 22.1 percent of all units in Nevada County. In 2009, Truckee’s
housing units represented 23.9 percent of the housing in the County. The
California Department of Finance (DOF) estimated 12,136 housing units in
Truckee in 2009, a 24.0 percent increase since 2000. Of the 12,136 housing
units in Truckee, approximately 4,382 units are considered to be second
homes and vacation homes. The American Community Survey Five-Year
Estimates for 2005-2009 indicates that 22 percent of dwelling units in eastern
Truckee (Glenshire, Sierra Meadows, Downtown, Prosser) are second homes
or vacant. The 2010 U.S Census reported 12,803 housing units in Truckee
and of those 68.2 percent are owner-occupied and 31.8 are renter-occupied.
2. Population
a. Permanent Population
The Town of Truckee is one of three incorporated cities in Nevada County.
In 2000, Nevada County was the fourth largest county in the Sierra Nevada
region with a population of 92,033. According to DOF, by 2009, Nevada
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
POPULATION AND HOUSING
4.12-3
County’s population had grown to 98,718 residents. From 1990 to 2000, the
County’s population increased by 17.2 percent and from 2000 to 2009, the
population increased by 7.3 percent.
Truckee represents approximately half of the total population living in the
incorporated areas of Nevada County. According to the U.S. Census and
DOF, Truckee experienced a 36 percent population increase between 1990
and 2000, and a 16.3 percent increase between 2000 and 2009. According to
the 2010 U.S. Census the total population in Truckee is 16,180. A population
of 25,280 is forecasted for Truckee in 2025.1
b. Temporary Population
Truckee, like other recreation and resort communities, has a high proportion
of second homes and vacation homes (approximately 4,382). Therefore, ap-
proximately 36 percent of the Town's housing stock consists of second
homes, whose residents are not counted among the Town's total population
in the U.S. Census. This means that during peak tourism periods in the
summer and winter, the Town's population can effectively double on a tem-
porary basis. In contrast to the Town, the Glenshire/Devonshire area is
mostly occupied by permanent residents and it is anticipated that the pro-
posed project would be occupied by full time permanent residents.
c. Household
Household size refers to the number of persons in a household. Average
household size is a function of the number of people living in households
divided by the number of occupied housing units in a given area.2 According
1 Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan, 2007 Housing Element, Appendix HA
– Housing Profile, Figure HA-1, Town of Truckee Population Growth Forecast 1990-
2025.
2 U.S. Census website, http://factfinder.census.gov/home/en/epss/
glossary_a.html#average, accessed August 9, 2011.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
POPULATION AND HOUSING
4.12-4
to the U.S. Census Bureau, there were 5,164 households in 2000 and 6,343
households in 2010, representing a 23 percent increase.3
The total households in Nevada County increased by 20 percent and the total
households in California increased by 10.6 percent from 1990 to 2000.4 Based
on DOF population estimates and number of persons per household, the total
households in Truckee in 2009 was 6,405, a 24 percent increase from 2000.
Comparatively, the total households in Nevada County increased by 13.8
percent and California increased by 10.7 percent between 2000 and 2009.
The 2010 U.S. Census reported that Truckee’s average household size was
2.49 persons per household, which represents a minor decrease when com-
pared to the 2000 U.S. Census report of 2.68 persons per household. Accord-
ing to the DOF, in 2009 the average decreased to 2.529 persons per house-
hold. Despite the decrease, Truckee’s average household size remains higher
than Nevada County’s (2.329 persons per household in 2009). Therefore, for
consistency with the recently adopted 2007-2014 Housing Element this Draft
EIR applies the 2.529 person per household generation number.
3. Employment
Housing needs are affected by employment trends. Availability of jobs in a
geographic area can create demand for nearby housing. The quality or pay of
available employment can also determine the demand for various housing
types and price levels.
Truckee is largely dependent on tourist, resort, second home, and retirement
activity. According to the Housing Element, 19.3 percent of Truckee’s popu-
lation was employed in arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation, and
food service, followed by construction (16.8 percent), educational, health and
3 U.S. Census website, http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/
pages/productview, accessed October 9, 2011.
4 Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan, 2007 Housing Element, Appendix HA
– Housing Profile, Table HA-8, Total Households 1990-2009.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
POPULATION AND HOUSING
4.12-5
social services (14.4 percent), and retail trade (11.6 percent).5 The largest em-
ployer in Truckee, Sierra Community College District, had a total employee
population of 1,095 persons in 2009 (this number includes employees outside
of Truckee). Approximately three firms within Truckee employed 250 or
more persons.
The Town of Truckee’s labor force increased from 8,800 in 2000 to 9,970 in
2008.6 According to the California Employment Development Department,
Truckee’s unemployment rate increased from 3.4 percent in 2000 to 4.5 per-
cent in 2003. Since 2003, Truckee’s unemployment rate has declined each
year through 2006 when the rate was 3.6 percent. Since 2006, the unem-
ployment rate has steadily increased to 6.8 percent in 2008. In 2008, the un-
employment rate for Nevada County was 8.4 percent.
C. Standards of Significance
The proposed project would have a significant impact with regard to popula-
tion and housing if it would:
¤ Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for ex-
ample, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for exam-
ple, through extension of roads or other infrastructure).
¤ Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the con-
struction of replacement housing elsewhere.
¤ Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere.
5 Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan, 2007 Housing Element, Appendix HA
– Housing Profile, Table HA-5, Employment by Industry. Source: U.S. Census 2000
SF3, P49.
6 Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan, 2007 Housing Element, Appendix HA
– Housing Profile, Table HA-7, Labor Force Trends 2000 – 2008. Source: State of
California Employment Development Department (EDD), 2009.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
POPULATION AND HOUSING
4.12-6
D. Impact Discussion
1. Project Impacts
a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for ex-
ample, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for exam-
ple, through extension of roads or other infrastructure).
i. Population Growth Associated with New Housing.
The project is anticipated to generate at 2.529 persons per household, which
would result in approximately 468 new residents for the project’s proposed
185 residential units.7 The proposed project meets the Town’s current prop-
erty zoning allowing for 213 residential units (RS-1). Therefore, impacts to
population growth associated with the development of the project would be
less than significant.
The project would comply with the mandatory Affordable Housing compo-
nent calculated in accordance with the Town Housing Element Program H-
1.3.2, which requires a minimum 15 percent affordable housing allocation for
new residential developments (i.e. eight lots.)8 For the purposes of this envi-
ronmental analysis it is assumed the affordable housing would comprise a
combination of three- and four-complex units totaling 26 affordable housing
units and would be constructed on-site. Therefore, impacts to affordable
housing associated with the development of the project would be less than
significant.
ii. Population Growth Associated with New Infrastructure.
Infrastructure associated with the project would serve the project site and
would not facilitate additional development as a result of increased infrastruc-
ture. Therefore, population growth associated with new infrastructure would
be less than significant.
7 Town of Truckee General Plan 2007-2014 Housing Element, Appendix A –
Housing Profile, page HA-7.
8 Town of Truckee 2007-2014 Housing Element Appendix HD, Past Per-
formance, page HD-3.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
POPULATION AND HOUSING
4.12-7
iii. Population Growth Associated with Employment.
The project, a residential development, would not provide permanent job
opportunities; however, the project would result in employment opportuni-
ties during its construction period. However, construction-related employ-
ment opportunities would not likely result in household relocation by con-
struction workers to the vicinity of the project site for various reasons, in-
cluding the following:
¤ Construction employment has no regular place of business; rather, con-
struction workers commute to job sites that may change several times a
year.
¤ Many construction workers are highly specialized (e.g. crane operators,
steelworkers, masons, etc.) and move from job site to job site as dictated
by the demand for their skills.
¤ The work requirements of most construction projects are also highly
specialized, and workers are employed on a job site only as long as their
skills are needed to complete a particular phase of the construction pro-
cess.
¤ Some construction workers would likely be drawn from the construction
employment labor force (16.8 percent of the total labor force) already
present in the Town.
Consequently, project-related construction workers would not be likely to
relocate their place of residence as a consequence of working on the project.
Therefore, impacts associated with employment would be less than significant.
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the con-
struction of replacement housing elsewhere.
There are no existing housing units on the project site. Therefore, the project
would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing, and no impacts
would occur.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
POPULATION AND HOUSING
4.12-8
c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere.
There are no existing housing units on the project site. Therefore, the project
would not displace substantial people, and no impacts would occur.
2. Cumulative Impacts
This section analyzes potential impacts to population and housing that could
occur from a combination of the project with the Town buildout identified in
the Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan and reasonably foreseeable projects in
the surrounding area. The geographic scope of this analysis is taken as the
Town of Truckee sphere of influence (SOI), as defined in the Town of Truckee
2025 General Plan and reasonably foreseeable projects in the surrounding ar-
ea. Therefore, a cumulative impact would be considered significant if, taken
together with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects in the Town
of Truckee SOI and other reasonably foreseeable projects in the surrounding
area, it would induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly
or indirectly, or displace existing housing or people.
By 2025, development of the project in conjunction with the Town buildout
would account for approximately two percent of the 12,136 anticipated hous-
ing units and for approximately two percent of the 25,280 anticipated total
population.
For the reasons noted above, development of the project in conjunction with
the Town buildout would assist the Town in meeting its fair share of regional
housing need, constituting a beneficial rather than adverse housing impact.
Because development of the project in conjunction with the Town buildout
would help address a portion of unmet housing demand and serve anticipated
population growth in the project area, either directly (e.g. by proposing new
homes), or indirectly (e.g. through extension of roads or other infrastructure),
cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
POPULATION AND HOUSING
4.12-9
E. Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Project and cumulative impacts related to population and housing would be
less than significant and no mitigation measures are warranted.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
POPULATION AND HOUSING
4.12-10
4.13 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
4.13-1
This section describes potential impacts from the proposed project on public
services including fire, police, snow removal, schools, and parks and recrea-
tion.
A. Fire and Emergency Services
1. Regulatory Setting
This section describes the federal, State, and local regulations that provide for
fire protection services in the United States and California.
a. Federal Regulations
There are no federal regulations regarding fire protection services that are
applicable to the proposed project.
b. State Regulations
i. California Building Code
The 2010 California Building Code (CBC) is included in Title 24 of the Cali-
fornia Code of Regulations and is a portion of the California Building Stand-
ards Code. Under State law, all building standards must be centralized in
Title 24 or they are not enforceable. Through the CBC, the State provides a
minimum standard for building design and construction. The CBC contains
requirements that relate to fire safety. The building permit process includes
review of building plans for compliance with the applicable provisions of the
CBC. In addition, all operations and buildings must meet the California Fire
Code.
c. Local Regulations
i. Nevada County Fire Plan
The Nevada County Fire Plan (NCFP) was prepared to reduce the risk from
wildland fires to life, property, and natural resources in Nevada County and
comply with the Disaster Management Act of 2000 and the Healthy Forest
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
4.13-2
Restoration Act of 2003.1 This NCFP was accepted by the Nevada County
Board of Supervisors in 2005. The NCFP includes an extensive series of rec-
ommendations for the Nevada County Board of Supervisors aimed at reduc-
ing wildland fire risk in Nevada County, including fuel management and de-
fensible space enforcement strategies, public education, infrastructure im-
provements to increase fire-fighting capacity, and coordination with local fire
agencies to ensure consistent and effective wildland fire mitigation efforts.
ii. Town of Truckee Emergency Operations Plan
The Town of Truckee Emergency Operations Plan (TEOP) was prepared in
February 2008 and serves as an extension of the California Emergency Plan.
The TEOP addresses the Town’s responsibilities in emergencies associated
with natural disasters, including wildfires. It provides a framework for coor-
dination of response and recovery efforts within the Town in coordination
and with local, State, and federal agencies. The TEOP establishes the emer-
gency organization, assigns tasks, specifies policies and general procedures,
and provides for coordination of planning efforts of the various emergency
staff and service elements utilizing the Standardized Emergency Management
System (SEMS). The plan also meets requirements established by the Nation-
al Incident Management System (NIMS).
iii. Town of Truckee Standard Condition for Fire Protection Services
The Town established the Town of Truckee Standard Condition for Fire
Protection Services on April 20, 2009 to identify the applicability of Truckee
Fire Protection District (TFPD) requirements on Town-approved projects
and the public official responsible for verifying compliance with the condi-
tion.2 The Standard Condition for Fire Protection Services policy states that
the review authority must make a finding of such before the review authority
1 The Nevada County Fire Plan: A framework for reducing threats to public
safety and reducing costs and losses as a result of wildfire in Nevada County by the
Fire Plan Committee (FPC) for the Nevada County Board of Supervisors, August
2004.
2 Town of Truckee Community Development Department, Policies, Proce-
dures, and Determinations, Director’s Determination #43.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
4.13-3
may approve a zoning clearance, development permit, or use permit to ensure
adequate provisions for emergency vehicle access and fire protection. The
finding focuses on the installation of physical infrastructure, facilities, and
improvements on or adjacent to the property and the payment of develop-
ment fees for the construction of facilities and purchase of equipment to ad-
dress cumulative impacts on fire services. Because the land use permit is ap-
proved by the Town, a Town official should be responsible for verifying
compliance with this finding in coordination with the TFPD Fire Marshal.
The following condition of approval shall be applied to the approval of all
zoning clearances, development permits, and use permits:
“As determined by the Community Development Director in coordination
with the District Fire Marshal, the project shall comply with all applicable
TFPD ordinances and requirements related to the construction or installation
of physical infrastructure, facilities, and improvements and the payment of
mitigation fees for the construction of facilities and the purchase of equip-
ment. These ordinances and requirements may include, but not be limited to,
installation of fire hydrants, minimum fire flow, automatic sprinkler systems
for buildings, driveway and turnaround specifications, and fuel clearance.
The physical infrastructure, facilities, and improvements shall be installed at
the time of development and completed prior to occupancy of buildings and
the land, and the mitigation fees shall be paid in accordance with adopted
Council rules for administration of the mitigation fee program.”
iv. Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan
The Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan contains goals and policies related to
fire protection and management of fire hazards in the Town. Relevant goals
and policies are contained in Table 4.13-1.
2. Existing Conditions
The Town of Truckee lies within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, as
defined by the California Department of Forestry, indicating that wildland
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
4.13-4
TABLE 4.13-1 TOWN OF TRUCKEE GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES
RELEVANT TO FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES
Policy or
Goal No. Goals and Policies
Goal LU-4 Coordinate land development with provision of services and infrastruc-
ture.
LU-P4.1
Work with all special districts, including the Tahoe-Truckee Unified
School District, to ensure that development within the Town is co-
ordinated with provision of services.
LU-P4.2
Cooperate with special districts to plan for and identify suitable fu-
ture sites for needed facilities, including schools, fire stations, solid
and liquid waste disposal sites, and utilities infrastructure, so that the
local population can be safely and efficiently served, while minimiz-
ing potential environmental impacts.
LU-P4.3
Approve rezoning and development permits only when adequate
services are available, or when a program to provide services has been
approved by the applicable District and the Town of Truckee.
Standards of services for new development applicable to this policy
are shown in Table LU-6.
Require that sewer be provided for all new residential subdivisions
creating more than four lots, and all new commercial and industrial
uses. Existing legal lots and new subdivisions of four or fewer lots in
areas currently without sewer may be developed with residential uses
using septic systems with the approval of the appropriate health and
environmental agencies.
Such lots may be required to establish connections to the sewer sys-
tem if they are located in close proximity to existing or future sewer
lines.
Goal SAF-4 Protect lives and property from risks associated with wildland and
urban fire.
SAF-P4.2
Continue to cooperate with the Fire Protection District to imple-
ment fire safety ordinances to minimize wildland fire hazards, in-
cluding incorporation of fire resistant building and roofing materials,
and attainment and maintenance of “defensible space.” Defensible
space may include revegetation with less flammable species, such as
fire resistant native and adapted species, and the use of mulch to pre-
vent erosion on bare soil.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT EIR
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
TABLE 4.13-1 TOWN OF TRUCKEE GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES
RELEVANT TO FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES (CONTINUED)
4.13-5
Policy or
Goal No. Goals and Policies
SAF-P4.3
Promote fire hazard reduction through cooperative fuel management
activities in association with the Truckee Fire Protection District,
the California Department of Forestry and the U.S. Forest Service.
Such strategies may include identifying and implementing opportu-
nities for fuel breaks in very high fire hazard severity zones, and
ensuring that fire breaks are provided where necessary and appropri-
ate.
SAF-P4.4 Require new development to incorporate adequate emergency water
flow, emergency vehicle access and evacuation routes.
SAF-P4.5
Continue to support the mitigation fee program for the Fire Protec-
tion District, to ensure that the District is able to meet the future fire
protection needs of the community as it grows.
SAF-P4.6
Support, as appropriate, efforts to implement the recommendations
of the 2005 Nevada County Fire Plan, and programs of Fire Safe
Nevada County.
SAF-P4.7
Ensure that the development review process addresses wildland fire
risk, including assessment of both construction- and project related
fire risks particularly in areas of the Town most susceptible to fire
hazards. Cooperate with the TFPD in reviewing fire safety plans
and provisions in new development, including aspects such as emer-
gency access, site design for maintenance of defensible space, and use
of non-combustible materials.
Source: Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan.
fires are considered to pose a significant hazard. The level of fire danger risk
within the project site is considered to be very high.3
The TFPD, established in 1894, is an independent Special District and public
agency that provides fire prevention, fire suppression, emergency medical care
and/or transportation, assorted rescue services, and public education services
to a 125-square-mile area, which includes the Town of Truckee.
3 Town of Truckee General Plan 2025, Figure SAF-4, Community Areas at Risk
from Wildland Fire, page 9-9.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
4.13-6
According to the TFPD, there are currently 49 full-time employees and nine
part-time fire fighters and two part-time prevention officers.4 The TFPD cur-
rently operates eight fire stations, four of which are staffed on a 24-hour basis.
Equipment operated by the TFPD includes fire engines, water tender, ambu-
lances, water rescue equipment, and a hazardous response vehicle. The pro-
ject site would be primarily served by Station 95 (Glenshire), and Station 92
(Gateway) would serve as a backup.
Station 95 (Glenshire) is a residential fire station located at 10900 Manchester
Drive in the Glenshire subdivision, approximately 1.2 miles from the project
site. Station 95 is staffed on a 24-hour basis by a Fire Captain and a Firefight-
er/Paramedic. Apparatus located at this station include an ambulance and a
fire engine. Station 95 was remodeled and expanded in March 2011, and
has space available within the station for future increases in personnel and/or
equipment. Station 95 is responsible for the protection of the Glenshire sub-
division, the Boca and Stampede recreation areas, and the Interstate 80 corri-
dor to the Nevada State Line.5
Station 92 (Gateway) is located at 11473 Donner Pass Road adjacent to
Truckee High School, approximately 10 miles from the project site. Station
92 is TFPD’s “main station,” and houses the Office of the Battalion Chief.
Station 92 is staffed by a Fire Captain and four Firefighter/Paramedics.6
Response distance relates directly to the linear travel distance (i.e. miles be-
tween a station and a site) and the TFPD’s ability to successfully navigate the
given accessways and adjunct circulation system. Roadway congestion and
intersection level-of-service along the response route can affect the response
distance when viewed in terms of travel time. The response time goal of
TFPD is approximately five minutes in the vicinity of the proposed project
4 Melvin, Linda. TFPD. Personal communication with The Planning Center |
DC&E. September 1, 2011.
5 http://www.truckeefire.org/about_us/station_95, retrieved August 2011.
6 http://truckeefire.org/about_us/station_92, retrieved, August 2011.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
4.13-7
site. However, due to the weather constraints between November and April,
response times can increase to approximately ten minutes.7
In addition to fire protection services provided by TFPD, the California De-
partment of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) provides wildland fire
protection to undeveloped forested area of the Sierra Nevada, including parts
of the Town of Truckee. Furthermore, the TFPD has automatic mutual-aid
agreements with adjoining fire departments at Northstar, Squaw Valley, and
North Tahoe to provide backup assistance during an emergency.8
3. Standards of Significance
The proposed project would have a significant impact with regard to fire and
emergency services if it would:
¤ Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provi-
sion of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain ac-
ceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives
for fire protection services.
4. Impact Discussion
The project is anticipated to generate 2.529 persons per household, which
would result in approximately 468 new residents for the project’s proposed
185 residential units.9 Because the proposed project would result in new pop-
ulation and residential development on an undeveloped site that is currently
limited to open space, the project would represent a more intense use of the
site. Although the relationship is not directly proportional, more intense uses
of land typically result in the increased potential for fire and emergency inci-
7 Melvin, Linda, TFPD. Personal communication with The Planning Center |
DC&E, September 1, 2011.
8 Melvin, Linda, TFPD. Personal communication with The Planning Center |
DC&E, September 1, 2011.
9 Town of Truckee General Plan 2007-2014 Housing Element, Appendix A –
Housing Profile, page HA-7.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
4.13-8
dents. Thus, the project would create an increased demand for fire protection
services.
Physical augmentation of the site would include removal of some of the exist-
ing vegetation and trees, and development of manufactured slopes, building
pads, and on-site roadways. While Glenshire Drive and Martis Peak Road
currently serve the project area, new internal access roads would be created
on the project site. The privately owned and maintained internal roadway
system would provide residential and emergency vehicle access. Vehicles
would circulate through the project area using the internal roadway system
and main entrance point. As noted in the Project Description (and shown on
Figure 3-5), emergency access would be provided by creating a secondary ac-
cess point to the project off of Edinburgh Drive located on the western bor-
der of the project site. Fire lanes and turning radii would be designed to meet
the standards of the TFPD so as to be adequate for emergency response vehi-
cles. Roadways would be designed with all weather surfaces and would be
capable of supporting emergency vehicles up to 40,000 pounds.
The project would incorporate a number of fire safety features in accordance
with applicable TFPD fire-safety code and Town regulations for construction,
access, fire flows, and fire hydrants. As described in the May 12, 2011 letter
submitted to the Town by TFPD included in Appendix B of this Draft EIR,
these required fire safety features include, but would not be limited to, instal-
lation of fire hydrants, provision of minimum flow requirement of 1,500 gal-
lons per minute (gpm) for a two-hour duration with a 20-pounds per square
inch (psi) residual, minimum 24-foot-wide roadways, adequate building spac-
ing, use of fire resistive building materials, and adequate vegetative clearance
around structures.
The project would be required to comply with the Town of Truckee Stand-
ard Condition for Fire Protection Services and obtain a “Will Serve” letter
from the TFPD prior to the issuance of building permits. In addition, the
project applicant would pay all mandatory Development Impact Fees as de-
termined by the Fire Chief or his designee after consultation with the appli-
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
4.13-9
cant. According to the TFPD, revenue for fires services equivalent to $164
per new single family home per year, $129 per new multi-family unit per
year, and 7.8¢ per square foot of new non-residential development per year,
inflated, beginning July 1, 2010, at the rate of two percent would be require.10
As discussed in Section 4.15, Utilities and Service Systems, of this Draft EIR,
the installation of off-site water infrastructure improvements would provide
the necessary fire flow (water pressure) to serve the proposed project.11 Sub-
sequently, as illustrated in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, of this Draft
EIR, the project would be consistent with all applicable General Plan policies
aimed at reducing fire hazards in the Truckee area.
In addition, according to the Interim Fire Chief, Bob Bena, the TFPD can
meet the Insurance Services Office, Inc. (ISO) Public Protection Classification
Program’s fire suppression rating of 5.0 following full buildout of the pro-
posed project. 12 The ISO fire suppression rating schedule grades a communi-
ty’s fire protection ability on a scale of 1.0 to 10.0, with 1.0 being the highest
rating possible. By classifying a communities' ability to suppress fires, ISO
helps communities evaluate their public fire protection services.
The additional 468 residents could increase the number of service calls, which
could increase the need for additional service levels, but the TFPD does not
expect that construction of additional facilities or acquirement of additional
equipment would be necessary.13 Therefore, considering the project as a
whole, including the project’s design features, compliance with mandatory
regulations, including the payment of TFPD Development Impact Fees, and
the recent expansion of Station 95, constructing new or expanded facilities or
10 Bena, Bob, Fire Chief, TFPD. Written communication with Denyelle
Nishimori, Associate Planner, Town of Truckee, May 12, 2011.
11 Kaufman, Neil, Water System Engineer, TDPUD. Email communication
with Denyelle Nishimori, Associate Planner, Town of Truckee., August 25, 2011.
12 Melvin, Linda, TFPD. Personal communication with The Planning Center |
DC&E, September 1, 2011.
13 Bena, Bob, Fire Chief, TFPD. Written communication with Seung Hong,
The Planning Center | DC&E, March 29, 2012.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
4.13-10
adding new personnel as a result of the construction and occupation of the
proposed project would not be necessary to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times, or other performance objectives for fire protection services.
Accordingly, project impacts related to fire protection services would be less
than significant and no mitigation measures are required.
5. Cumulative Impacts
This section analyzes potential impacts to fire and emergency services that
could occur from a combination of the project with the Town buildout iden-
tified in the Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan and reasonably foreseeable
projects in the TFPD service area. This analysis only takes into account the
Town’s buildout projections because, as noted in Chapter 4, Environmental
Evaluation, of this Draft EIR, there is no foreseeable project in the surround-
ing area.
The project, in conjunction with the buildout projections identified in the
Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan, would cumulatively increase the demand
for fire protection services in the TFPD, and would likely result in the need
for the District to construct additional fire protection facilities, which could
result in additional environmental impacts. The timing and location of antic-
ipated new or expanded fire protection facilities is unknown at this time and
any potential environmental impacts resulting from the construction of new
or expanded facilities would be identified and evaluated at the time such facili-
ties were proposed. Since Truckee represents the largest concentration of
population for the TFPD service area, facilities needed to service the growth
projections of the Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan, which include the pro-
posed project at a higher density (213 units) than what is currently proposed
(185 units), would also be adequate to meet the demand generated by any oth-
er planned growth occurring within the TFPD’s service area. As with the
project, the applicants of the projects in the TFPD’s service area would be
required to pay Developer Impact Fees to the TFUD, obtain a ‘Will Serve”
letter, and be consistent with the applicable fire protection policies identified
in the General Plan; combined, these regulatory requirements would ensure
any cumulative impacts on fire protection services would be less than signifi-
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
4.13-11
cant. As stated previously, the project’s impacts to fire protection services
would be less than significant. Therefore, the project would not contribute to
any potential cumulative impacts, and cumulative impacts to fire protection
services would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.
6. Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Project and cumulative impacts related to fire protection services would be
less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.
B. Police
1. Regulatory Setting
This section describes the federal, State, and local regulations that provide for
police protection services in the United States and California.
a. Federal and State Regulations
There are no federal or State regulations related to police protection services
that are applicable to the proposed project.
b. Local Regulations
i. Town of Truckee General Plan
The Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan contains goals and policies related to
police protection in the Town. Relevant goals and policies are contained in
Table 4.13-2.
2. Existing Conditions
The Truckee Police Department (TPD) provides all police-related services for
the Town, including: Administration, Uniformed Patrol, Boat Patrol on
Donner Lake, Investigative Services, a School Resource Officer, and Traffic
Enforcement. The TPD operates out of its headquarters at 10183 Truckee
Airport Road. The Operations Division consists of Patrol, Traffic, Marine
Operations, Reserves, and Volunteers in Police Services (VIPS) units. The
Patrol Unit has a total of 26 sworn officers and four non-sworn personnel
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
4.13-12
who provide service to the Town’s 16,200 permanent residents.14 This
equates to a ratio of 1.68 police per thousand people.15 There is no established
standard staffing ratio. The TPD also provides service to non-residents, in-
cluding vacationers and weekend and holiday visitors.
The Town is under contract with the Nevada County Sheriff’s Office
(NCSO) for dispatch services.16 All calls are responded to from the TPD’s
headquarters. Response times to calls range from 30 seconds up to ten
minutes, depending on the location within Truckee as well as the type of call
received. An officer is typically on scene within 3 to 5 minutes for emergen-
cy calls, whereas non-emergency calls tend to be responded to within ten
minutes if an officer is available.17
A police beat is a designated area of a police department’s service area that is
regularly patrolled along a specified route by a police unit. The project area is
located within Patrol Beat 3.18
3. Standards of Significance
The proposed project would have a significant impact with regard to police
services if it would:
¤ Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provi-
sion of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which
14 Town of Truckee website, www.townoftruckee.com, retrieved September 1,
2011.
15 McLeod, Charlie, Record Technician, Truckee Police Department. Personal
communication with The Planning Center | DC&E, December 2, 2011.
16 Town of Truckee, 2011/12 Annual Budget Detail, Public Safety – Police.
17 Trygg, Andrew, Nevada County Sheriff’s Department. Email communica-
tion with The Planning Center | DC&E, December 7, 2011.
18 Whinery, Sheri, Community Service Officer, TPD. Personal communica-
tion with The Planning Center | DC&E, September 1, 2011.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
4.13-13
¤
TABLE 4.13-2 TOWN OF TRUCKEE GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES
RELEVANT TO POLICE SERVICES
Policy or
Goal No. Goals and Policies
Goal LU-4: Coordinate land development with provision of services and infrastruc-
ture.
LU-P4.1
Work with all special districts, including the Tahoe-Truckee Unified
School District, to ensure that development within the Town is co-
ordinated with provision of services.
LU-P4.2
Cooperate with special districts to plan for and identify suitable fu-
ture sites for needed facilities, including schools, fire stations, solid
and liquid waste disposal sites, and utilities infrastructure, so that the
local population can be safely and efficiently served, while minimiz-
ing potential environmental impacts.
LU-P4.4
Review all development proposals to ensure that demand generated
for police services can be adequately met; periodically evaluate cur-
rent funding mechanisms for police services to determine if they are
adequate, and consider revisions as necessary.
Source: Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan.
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain ac-
ceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives
for police services.
4. Impact Discussion
Buildout of the project would result in an estimated 468 new residents.19 The
additional number of people and activity on the project site would result in
an increase in the need for police services in the TPD service area. The crime
rate, which represents the number of crimes reported, affects the “needs” pro-
jection for staff and equipment for the TPD. A number of factors contribute
to the resultant crime rate, such as police presence, crime prevention
measures, and on-going legislation/funding. Therefore, the potential for in-
creased crime rates is not necessarily directly proportional to increases in
19 Town of Truckee General Plan 2007-2014 Housing Element, Appendix A –
Housing Profile, page HA-7.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
4.13-14
population or development. According to the Truckee Police Department
Monthly Activity Reports for 2009 and 2010, overall calls for service de-
creased from 15,715 to 15,076 and violent crimes decreased from 411 to 385.20
The project would be consistent with all applicable General Plan policies
aimed at maintaining adequate police protection services for the Truckee area.
While the project would increase the number of persons and level of activity
on the project site, given the project site has been regularly used for recrea-
tion and is surrounded by the types of uses associated with residential, it is
reasonable to expect that the project would not result in a meaningful in-
crease in the amount of crime in the project area. Accordingly, the affect that
the project would have on response times would be minimal.
Further, while additional police equipment and staff may be necessary to ac-
commodate the project, the additional demand for police services created by
the project would not require the need for new or altered police facilities.
However, considering the future residents would be required to pay property
taxes, which provide funding for law enforcement, and the project would be
consistent with the applicable police protection policies identified in the Gen-
eral Plan, buildout of the proposed project would not affect the delivery of
police services and require additional police facilities in TPD service area.21
Therefore, project impacts to police services would be less than significant and
no mitigation measures are warranted.
5. Cumulative Impacts
This section analyzes potential impacts to police services that could occur
from a combination of the project with the Town buildout identified in the
Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan and reasonably foreseeable projects in the
TPD service area. This analysis only takes into account the Town’s buildout
20 Town of Truckee website, www.townoftruckee.com, Departments, Police,
Records, Statistics, Truckee Police Department Monthly Activity Reports, retrieved
September 1, 2011.
21 McLeod, Charlie, Record Technician, Truckee Police Department. Personal
communication with The Planning Center | DC&E, December 2, 2011.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
4.13-15
projections because, as noted in Chapter 4 of this Draft EIR, there is no fore-
seeable project in the surrounding area.
The project, in conjunction with the Town buildout identified in the Town of
Truckee 2025 General Plan, would cumulatively increase the demand for po-
lice protection services in the TPD. During the 20-year life of the General
Plan, the population could increase by 28,520 individuals and the number of
residential units could increase by 20,082 dwelling units under the conserva-
tive buildout projections used in the General Plan EIR; subsequently, it is
anticipated that approximately 14,270 additional people will reside in Truck-
ee. The current ratio of police officers per thousand residents in the Town is
1.63. Assuming a similar ratio is maintained in the future, the additional
14,270 persons would require an increase in police staffing by approximately
24 officers. This increase in population at buildout would likely result in the
need for the Town to construct additional police facilities, which could result
in additional environmental impacts. The timing and location of anticipated
new or expanded police facilities is unknown at this time and any potential
environmental impacts resulting from the construction of new or expanded
facilities would be identified and evaluated at the time such facilities were
proposed. As with the project, the future projects in the TPD’s service area
would be required to pay property taxes, which provide funding for law en-
forcement, and be consistent with the applicable fire protection policies iden-
tified in the General Plan; combined, these regulatory requirements would
ensure any cumulative impacts on police services would be less than signifi-
cant. As stated previously, the project’s impacts to police services would be
less than significant. Therefore, the project would not contribute to any po-
tential cumulative impacts, and cumulative impacts to police services would
be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.
6. Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Project and cumulative impacts related to police protection services would be
less than significant and no mitigation measures are warranted.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
4.13-16
C. Snow Removal Services
1. Regulatory Setting
This section describes the federal, State, and local regulations that provide for
snow removal services in the United States and California.
a. Federal and State Regulations
There are no federal or State regulations related to snow removal services that
are applicable to the proposed project.
b. Local Regulations
i. Town of Truckee Municipal Code Chapter 10.17 Snow Removal
The Town of Truckee Municipal Code provides the regulatory authority for
the snow removal in the Town for the health, safety, and welfare of the resi-
dences and visitors of Truckee.
2. Existing Conditions
The Town of Truckee Public Works Department and their contractors are
responsible for snow removal on the majority of non-State and non-federal
public roadways starting in November and ending in April. Nevada County,
Placer County, and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
District 3 are responsible for snow removal on designated county and State
roadways. Caltrans District 3 provides snow removal services from the
Truckee Maintenance Station located in the Town of Truckee adjacent to
Interstate 80. Roadway maintenance and snow removal on private roads and
private property is the responsibility of the land owners.
Depending on conditions, snow removal on Truckee roadways occurs seven
days a week, 24 hours a day. Top priority is given to support for emergency
agency responses in an effort to achieve the Town’s goal of safe and timely
snow removal operations. Other priorities are as follows:
¤ Main arterial and school bus routes.
¤ Secondary residential streets
¤ Cul-de-sacs.
¤ High elevation areas subject to high winds.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
4.13-17
Snow is stored along roadways in the Town rights-of-way, and in designated
snow storage areas (such as snow storage easements). The Town also hauls
some snow from areas such as Downtown Truckee on an as-needed basis.
The Town currently requires the dedication of 20-foot snow storage ease-
ments across new commercial and residential development fronting public
roadways. In a large storm event, the easement alone may not be capable of
containing the entire quantity of the snow. During intense snow storm peri-
ods, equipment and facilities can be been overburdened and unable to main-
tain the roads clear of snow within the Town’s goal of clearing each street
twice daily.22
3. Standards of Significance
The proposed project would have a significant impact with regard to snow
removal services if it would:
¤ Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provi-
sion of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain ac-
ceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives
for snow removal services.
4. Impacts Discussion
Snow removal on the project site would be the responsibility of the new
Canyon Springs Homeowners Association until revenue neutrality is reached.
As shown on Figure 3-9, the project roadways are designed to meet the
Town’s Public Improvement & Engineering Standards (PIES). However, the
emergency access connection to Edinburgh Drive would have a reduced
roadway width. Single-family homes do not have minimum snow storage
requirements. However, the adequacy of snow storage areas adjacent to
roadways and public areas would meet the Town’s snow storage requirements
22 Wilkins, Dan, Department of Public Works, Town of Truckee. Personal
communication with Seung Hong, The Planning Center | DC&E, April 3, 2012.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
4.13-18
of a 20-foot snow storage easement.23 In general, all the roads in the internal
circulation network would have a 60-foot wide right-of-way.24 However, the
emergency access connection to Edinburgh Drive would have a reduced
roadway width. All roadways would include 20-foot snow storage easements
(SSE) on each side, allowing for a 20-foot travel lane on all roadways, with the
exception of the Edinburgh Drive emergency access. As discussed in Chapter
3, Project Description, of this Draft EIR, snow management would be ad-
dressed to ensure that residents and visitors are provided safe and convenient
access to and from their homes and within the public use areas (i.e. mailbox
cluster area and recreational area) during storm events.
Roadway maintenance and snow removal on private roads and private prop-
erty will initially be the responsibility of the land owners through the new
Canyon Springs Homeowners Association. At the time that the project re-
quires snow removal services from the Town, the required payment of De-
veloper Impact Fees, which are levied on all new development to provide
funding for the provision of needed services in the Town, would ensure that
project impacts to the Town’s snow removal services would be less than signif-
icant and no mitigation measures are required.
5. Cumulative Impacts
This section analyzes potential impacts to snow removal services that could
occur from a combination of the project with the Town buildout identified in
the General Plan and reasonably foreseeable projects in the Town’s service
area. This analysis only takes into account the Town’s buildout projections
because, as noted in Chapter 4 of this Draft EIR, there is no foreseeable pro-
ject in the surrounding area.
23 Town of Truckee Municipal Code, Title 18, Development Code, Chapter
18.30, General Property and Development Use Standards, Section 18.30.130 – Snow
Storage.
24 Town’s Public Improvement & Engineering Standards, Standard Drawing
(SD) #6. SD#6 is the standard for a Local Road (Public).
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
4.13-19
The project, in conjunction with the buildout projections identified in the
General Plan, would cumulatively increase the demand for snow removal
services in the Town, and would likely result in the need for the Town to
acquire additional snow removal equipment or contract for additional snow
removal services, and to potentially construct additional facilities to store and
maintain such equipment. The Town Public Work Department has a plan to
construct additional facilities, such as storage buildings, at the Town Corpora-
tion Yard site to response to the cumulative demand for snow removal ser-
vices in the town.25 As stated previously, the project’s impacts to snow re-
moval services would be less than significant. Therefore, the project would
not contribute to any potential cumulative impacts, and cumulative impacts
to snow removal services would be less than significant and no mitigation
measures are required.
6. Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Project and cumulative impacts related to snow removal services would be less
than significant and no mitigation measures are required.
D. Schools
1. Regulatory Setting
This section describes the federal, State, and local regulations that provide for
school services in the United States and California.
a. Federal Regulations
There are no federal regulations related to school services that are applicable
to the proposed project.
25 Wilkins, Dan, Department of Public Works, Town of Truckee. Email
communication with The Planning Center | DC&E, April 3, 2012.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
4.13-20
b. State Regulations
i. Assembly Bill 2926
The State of California has traditionally been responsible for the funding of
local public schools. To assist in providing facilities to serve students generat-
ed by new development projects, the State passed Assembly Bill 2926 (Chap-
ter 887/Statutes 1986) in 1986. This bill allowed school districts to collect
impact fees from developers of new residential and commercial/industrial
building space. The provisions of AB 2926 have since been expanded and
revised by AB 1600 in 1987, which created Sections 66000 et seq. of the Gov-
ernment Code.26
ii. California Education Code
Title 5 Education Code of the California Code of Regulations governs all
aspects of education within the State. Pursuant to California Education Code
Section 17620(a)(1), the governing board at any school district is authorized to
levy a fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement against any construction
within the boundaries of the district, for the purpose of funding the construc-
tion or reconstruction of school facilities.27
iii. Senate Bill (SB 50) and Proposition 1A of 1998
On August 27, 1998, the Governor signed into law Senate Bill 50 (SB 50), the
Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998, which is identified as Chapter
407/Statutes 1998. SB 50 along with bond procedures under Proposition 1A
of 1998 regulate school financing and mitigation by setting development fee
caps, removing authority for denial of a development application based solely
on current school capacity levels, and ensuring that impacts to schools are
mitigated under CEQA. California Government Code Section 65996(a) al-
lows the payment of developer fees as a means to mitigate an environmental
effect under CEQA from the construction of new school facilities. Accord-
26 A Planner’s Guide to Financing Public Improvements, Chapter 5,
http://ceres.ca.gov/planning/financing/chap5.html accessed on, November 30, 2011.
27 Education Code Section 17620-17626, http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-
bin/displaycode?section=edc&group=17001-18000&file=17620-17626, accessed on
November 30, 2011.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
4.13-21
ing to Government Code Section 65996, the payment of fees “…is deemed to
be full and complete mitigation of the impacts of any legislative or act, or
both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real
property, or any change in governmental organization or reorganization.”
These provisions are in effect until 2012 and will remain in place as long as
subsequent State bonds are approved and available.
c. Local Regulations
New development in Truckee is required to pay impact fees to Tahoe-
Truckee Unified School District (TTUSD) to address the impacts of new
population on school facilities.28 According to the TTUSD, a fee of $2.63 per
square foot is required for new residential development to pay for the con-
struction of new school facilities.29 In addition to these developer impact fees,
the TTUSD receives parcel tax revenue from residential parcels within the
service area since 1989 based on Measure A, which is scheduled to expire in
2012 unless renewed by voters.30
i. Town of Truckee General Plan
The Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan contains goals and policies related to
school services in the Town. Relevant goals and policies are contained in Ta-
ble 4.13-3.
2. Existing Conditions
The project site would be served by the TTUSD which covers an area of ap-
proximately 720 square miles, encompassing portions of Nevada, Placer, and
El Dorado Counties. The TTUSD consists of five elementary schools, two
28 Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District, http://www.ttusd.org/Default.
asp?DivisionID=2455&DepartmentID=2387&SubDepartmentID=0&keyword=%
20fees, accessed on November 30, 2011.
29 Rivera, Todd, TTUSD Facilities Department. Written communication with
The Planning Center | DC&E, December 7, 2011.
30 Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District, http://www.ttusd.org/Default.
asp?DivisionID=6550&DepartmentID=0&SubDepartmentID=0&keyword=parcel%
20tax, accessed on November 30, 2011.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
4.13-22
TABLE 4.13-3 TOWN OF TRUCKEE GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES
RELEVANT TO SCHOOL SERVICES
Policy or
Goal No. Goals and Policies
Goal LU-4 Coordinate land development with provision of services and infrastruc-
ture.
LU-P4.1
Work with all special districts, including the Tahoe-Truckee Unified
School District, to ensure that development within the Town is coor-
dinated with provision of services.
LU-P4.2
Cooperate with special districts to plan for and identify suitable future
sites for needed facilities, including schools, fire stations, solid and
liquid waste disposal sites, and utilities infrastructure, so that the local
population can be safely and efficiently served, while minimizing po-
tential environmental impacts.
Source: Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan.
middle schools, one alternative middle school, two high schools, and one con-
tinuation high school. According to the California Department of Education
Educational Demographics Unit’s District Enrollment Report the TTUSD
had a combined enrollment of approximately 3,909 students for the 2010-11
school-year and has generally seen a consistent decline in enrollment over the
past three years.31 Students of the proposed project would generally attend
the following schools: Glenshire Elementary School with an estimated maxi-
mum attendance capacity of 500; Alder Creek Middle School with an estimat-
ed maximum capacity of 802; and Tahoe-Truckee High School with an esti-
mated maximum capacity of 905, for an estimated total capacity of 2,207 stu-
dents.32 Glenshire Elementary, located at 10990 Dorchester Drive, had an
enrollment of 487 in the 2010-11 school-year which represents a decline of
approximately 40 students since the 2008-09 school-year. Alder Creek Middle
School, located at 10931 Alder Drive, had an enrollment of 581 students in
the 2010-11 school-year which represents a slight increase of 21 students since
31 California Department of Education, Educational Demographics Office,
DataQuest website, http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/, retrieved September 8, 2011.
32 Capital Program Management, Inc., 2007. TTUSD Facilities Master Plan Draft
Report, Table 6 Truckee High School Attendance Area Present Facility Capacity.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
4.13-23
the 2008-09 school-year. Tahoe-Truckee High School, at 11725 Donner Pass
Road, had an enrollment of 674 students in the 2010-11 school year which
represents a decline of 128 students since the 2008-09 school year. According
to the TTUSD, existing housing has generated enrollment as high as 5,000
students.
3. Standards of Significance
The proposed project would have a significant impact with regard to other
public facilities if it would:
¤ Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provi-
sion of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain ac-
ceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives
for school services.
4. Impact Discussion
Truckee, like other recreation and resort communities, has a high proportion
of second homes and vacation homes; however, current population patterns
in the Town indicate that households similar to those proposed by the project
(i.e. Glenshire subdivision) are occupied year round. Therefore, the addition-
al number of school-age children associated with the project site could result
in an increase in the need for school services in the TTUSD service area. This
approach represents a conservative analysis when considering the schools that
would serve the project have generally experienced a steady decline in en-
rollment and not all schools are at capacity. Based on the project’s 177 single-
family residential units and 26 multi-family residential units, the application
of the TTUSD’s Student Yield Rates for Single-Family and Multi-Family Res-
idential, the project has the potential to generate approximately 66 Kindergar-
ten through Twelfth grade students. The estimated break down is 39 elemen-
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
4.13-24
tary school, 12 middle school, and 15 high school students.33 However, ac-
cording to the TTUSD student yield rates from similar housing constructed
in the nearby Glenshire subdivision, the proposed project could potentially
generate as many as 45 elementary school, 20 middle school, and 30 high
school students.34 According to the TTUSD, current enrollment at Glenshire
Elementary is 515 students, at Alder Creek Middle School is 536 students and
at Tahoe-Truckee High School is 633 students.35 Applying the higher student
yield rate of 45 elementary school students would indicate that Glenshire El-
ementary School, with a maximum capacity of 500, would experience over-
crowding at project buildout. However, both Alder Middle School and Ta-
hoe-Truckee High School would have capacity at project buildout.
As discussed in Chapter 3 of this Draft EIR, the project would be constructed
over eight phases spanning a 20-year period, so it is unlikely the project
would yield the estimated numbers in the immediate future. In the short-
term, the TTUSD plans to expand the site and hard court areas at Truckee
Elementary school to accommodate the current capacity; reconstruct class-
room wings at Tahoe-Truckee High; renovate fields at Tahoe-Truckee High;
and renovate or replace the portable classrooms approaching their recom-
mend useful life (i.e. 20 years); however, the TTUSD does not currently have
the funding necessary to implement these projects.
While no new schools are planned in the near future, TTUSD recognized that
in the long term, additional school facilities will be needed and would do so
through the construction of new facilities or through the expansion of exist-
ing schools. Therefore, according to TTUSD, if Glenshire Elementary
School is operating at capacity at project buildout, then students generated
33 Capital Program Management, Inc., 2007. TTUSD Facilities Master Plan Draft
Report, Table 14 and 15, Student Yield Rates for Single-Family and Multi-Family Resi-
dential.
34 Rivera, Todd, TTUSD Facilities Department. Written communication with
The Planning Center | DC&E, December 7, 2011.
35 Rivera, Todd, TTUSD Facilities Department. Written communication with
The Planning Center | DC&E, December 7, 2011.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
4.13-25
from the project may have to be housed at other TTUSD sites within the
Truckee area. Additionally, the current school boundaries may be reassessed
at this site if it is at its development capacity and is unable to expand its exist-
ing school facility due to site size restrictions.36 Based on the developer fees
established by the TTUSD, the project applicant would be required to pay
$2.63 per square foot of residential development. While the TTUSD is con-
cerned that the payment of these fees only covers a portion of the true cost of
constructing schools, as provided in Section 65996 of the California Govern-
ment Code, the payment of such fees is deemed to fully mitigate the impacts
of new development on school services. Therefore, with payment of these
required developer fees and property taxes, project impacts to school services
would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.
5. Cumulative Impacts
The project, in conjunction with the Town buildout identified in the General
Plan, would cumulatively increase the demand for school services in the
TTUSD. At buildout, under implementation of the General Plan, projected
population levels are 28,520 individuals with 20,082 projected dwelling units
and new commercial development; subsequently, it is anticipated that approx-
imately 14,270 additional people will reside in Truckee. However, payment
of developer fees and property taxes would fully mitigate any impact that the
new projects would have on school services. As stated previously, the pro-
ject’s impacts to school services would be less than significant. Therefore, the
project would not contribute to any potential cumulative impacts, and cumu-
lative impacts to school services would be less than significant and no mitiga-
tion measures are required.
6. Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Project and cumulative impacts related to school services would be less than
significant and no mitigation measures are required.
36 Rivera, Todd, TTUSD Facilities Department. Written communication with
The Planning Center | DC&E, December 7, 2011.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
4.13-26
E. Parks and Recreation
1. Regulatory Setting
This section describes the federal, State, and local regulations that provide for
park and recreation services in the United States and California.
a. Federal Regulations
There are no federal regulations related to park and recreation services that
are applicable to the proposed project.
b. State Regulations
i. Quimby Act
The 1975 Quimby Act (California Government Code Section 66477) author-
izes municipalities to pass ordinances requiring that developers set aside land,
donate conservation easements, or pay fees for park improvements in combi-
nation with their projects. The goal of the Quimby Act was to require de-
velopers to help mitigate the impacts of development. Revenues generated
through the Quimby Act cannot be used for the operation and maintenance
of existing park facilities.37
Under the Quimby Act, municipalities with a high ratio of park space to in-
habitants can set a standard of 5 acres per thousand persons for new develop-
ment. However, cities with a lower current ratio can only require the provi-
sion of up to 3 acres of park space per 1,000 population. The calculation of a
city’s park space to population ratio is based on a comparison of the popula-
tion count of the last federal census to the amount of city- or town-owned
parkland.
c. Local Regulations
i. Truckee Donner Recreation and Park District Master Plan
The Truckee Donner Recreation and Park District (TDRPD) adopted a ten-
year Truckee Donner Recreation and Park District Master Plan (TDRPD Master
37 California Park and Recreation Society, http://www.cprs.org/members on-
ly/ Sum02_Quimby.htm, accessed on April 21, 2011.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
4.13-27
Plan) for the community in 1990 formulated to “facilitate the establishment
of a balanced park, recreation and open space system that satisfied current
needs and planned for future growth.” The TDRPD Master Plan specifies a
series of standards and goals for various types of parkland.
ii. Town of Truckee Trails and Bikeways Master Plan
The Truckee Trails and Bikeways Master Plan (TBMP) is intended to supple-
ment and implement the TDRPD Master Plan by providing the more-detailed
analysis necessary for the development of a town-wide trail and bikeway sys-
tem. The purpose of the TBMP is to have a community-based planning effort
promoting the development of a local multi-use trail and bikeway system
designed to increase recreational, educational, and alternative transportation
opportunities for the benefit of local residents and visitors to the Truckee
area.
The TBMP is considered a community plan to be used by all public and pri-
vate entities proposing development of a recreational trail or on-street
bikeway project within its boundaries. It is intended to be used as a guide for
future local, State, and federal roadway improvement projects and all future
recreational trail projects. When reasonable and warranted, all local, State,
and federal sponsored projects providing an opportunity to implement the
objectives of the TBMP will be strongly encouraged to expand or modify the
scope of these individual projects to be consistent with the TBMP. The goals
and policies of the TBMP provide guidance for the planning, development,
and management for the type, design, and general location of trail corridors
within the Town.
iii. Town of Truckee General Plan
The Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan contains goals and policies related to
park and recreation services in the Town. Relevant goals and policies are
contained in Table 4.13-4.
In order to meet conditions required for application of the Quimby Act, the
Town included the General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element Pol-
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
4.13-28
icy COS-P8.1, which requires land or in-lieu fees for parks to be provided by
new development at a minimum ratio of 5 acres per thousand population, to
conform with standards established by Town Ordinance 96-04 (Quimby
Fees). According to the Truckee-Donner Recreation and Park District a
Quimby Fee of $3,832 per parcel would be required.38
iv. Town of Truckee Resolution No. 2008-28
Resolution No. 2008-28 is a resolution of the Town Council, which adopted a
recreational facilities mitigation fee and established rules for the administra-
tion of the Recreational Facilities Mitigation Fee Program. Exhibit A, Recre-
ational Facilities Mitigation Fee, of the resolution identifies the fee that shall
be applied to all applications for a building permit submitted to the Town on
or after August 1, 2008 and to any building permit issued by the Town, re-
gardless of the date of submittal of the application, on or after December 1,
2008. According to Exhibit A, a single family detached unit would require a
payment of $0.86 per square foot and $1.27 per square foot for a multi-family
unit.
v. Town of Truckee Resolution No. 2008-29
Resolution No. 2008-29 is a resolution of the Town Council, which adopted a
Subdivision Park and Recreational Fee and established rules for the admin-
istration of the Subdivision Park and Recreational Fee Program. Exhibit A,
Subdivision Park and Recreational Fee, of the resolution identifies the fee that
shall be applied to all applications for a for a tentative map or tentative map
waiver submitted to the Town and determined to be complete on or after
June 16, 2008. According to Exhibit A, a single family detached unit would
require a payment of $3,832 per parcel and $2,633 per parcel for a multi-
family unit.
38 Mitchell, Sue, District Clerk, Truckee-Donner Recreation and Park District.
Email communication with Denyelle Nishimori, Associate Planner, Town of Truck-
ee, July 26, 2010.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
4.13-29
TABLE 4.13-4 TOWN OF TRUCKEE GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES
RELEVANT TO PARK AND RECREATION SERVICES
Policy or
Goal No. Goals and Policies
Goal LU 1 Manage growth so as to maintain the unique qualities and character of
the Town as a small mountain community.
LU-P1.1
All new development shall meet important community goals for
design quality, open space preservation, and promotion of a livable,
sustainable community. Development that does not fulfill these
goals shall not be allowed.
Goal LU-4 Coordinate land development with provision of services and infrastruc-
ture.
LU-P4.1
Work with all special districts, including the Tahoe-Truckee Unified
School District, to ensure that development within the Town is co-
ordinated with provision of services.
Goal LU-5
Encourage a mix of land uses in the Town to promote a vibrant commu-
nity and to reduce traffic, while addressing the need to minimize land use
conflicts.
LU-P5.3
Support development of neighborhood centers through establish-
ment of uses and facilities that provide a direct benefit to the neigh-
borhood, such as educational and recreation facilities, day care ser-
vices, places of worship, community meeting centers, fire stations,
small parks, libraries and other public facilities, telecenters, and
neighborhood commercial uses.
Goal LU-7
Encourage clustered residential development to create efficient develop-
ment patterns, and to minimize environmental impacts and threats to
public safety.
LU-P7.5
Preserve the portions of parcels not developed with clustered resi-
dential used as undeveloped open space. Preservation and manage-
ment options for open space include:
¤ Dedication to a homeowners association.
¤ Dedication to a public agency such as the Parks District, or to a
land trust or other non-profit agency.
¤ Use of building envelopes in conjunction with conservation
easements or deed restrictions.
Goal CC-1 Preserve open space in Truckee that contributes to the town’s scenic
mountain community character.
CC-P1.1
Utilize the mechanisms and strategies identified in the Conservation
and Open Space Element of the General Plan as a tool to actively
protect open space in Truckee, including that containing or contrib-
uting to the town’s scenic mountain qualities.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
TABLE 4.13-4 TOWN OF TRUCKEE GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES
RELEVANT TO PARK AND RECREATION SERVICES
(CONTINUED)
4.13-30
Policy or
Goal No. Goals and Policies
CC-P1.3
Cluster new development so as to preserve the maximum amount of
desired types of open space, as identified in the Conservation and
Open Space Element.
CC-P1.4
Create a connected network of open spaces in Truckee that is acces-
sible to the community for outdoor recreation and other use and
enjoyment, as a key aspect of local community character.
Goal CC-10 Strengthen and enhance Truckee’s neighborhood centers, and create new
centers where they do not exist today.
CC-P10.2
Create new neighborhoods centers or focal points in neighborhoods
where they do not currently exist. Such centers may include small
commercial convenience centers like those found in Glenshire and
Tahoe Donner, or may be focused around non-commercial commu-
nity-serving uses such as those described in the sidebar opposite.
Goal CC-12 Enhance the character of Truckee’s rural residential neighborhoods.
CC-P12.4
Provide sidewalks along at least one side of major roadways in
Truckee’s rural residential neighborhoods, except those of the most
rural character, where sidewalks should be minimized and pedestrian
connections enhanced instead through development of off-road trails.
CC-P12.5 Retain an expansive open space and mountain landscape quality as
the dominant feature of Truckee’s rural residential neighborhoods.
Goal CIR-10 Provide a safe, comprehensive, and integrated system of facilities for pe-
destrians and cyclists and other non-motorized modes of transportation.
CIR-P10.2
Implement the network of trails and bikeways described in the Trails
& Bikeways Master Plan, with priority given to establishment of a
trail from Donner Lake along Donner Creek and the Truckee River
to the eastern Town limit. This cross-town trail would serve as the
main "artery" of the Town's trail network, with other trails connect-
ing to it along its length, and would provide a critical link to major
regional trails including a trail to the west that connects to Donner
Summit and the Pacific Crest Trail, and to the east to trails that fol-
low the Truckee River to Nevada.
CIR-P10.3
Identify and implement new pedestrian facilities beyond those identi-
fied in the Trails & Bikeways Master Plan and Downtown Streetscape
Plan. These facilities may include, but not be limited to, pedestrian
facilities along Donner Pass Road between Cold Stream Road and
South Shore Drive, along Highway 89 South, and along West River
Street.
Goal COS-1 Preserve existing open space in Truckee, and increase the amount of de-
sired types of open space under permanent protection.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
TABLE 4.13-4 TOWN OF TRUCKEE GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES
RELEVANT TO PARK AND RECREATION SERVICES
(CONTINUED)
4.13-31
Policy or
Goal No. Goals and Policies
COS-P1.1
Acquire and preserve open space lands in Truckee, and purchase
development rights for the purpose of open space preservation, with
priority given to the following open space types:
¤ Regional parks.
¤ Neighborhood parks.
¤ Pristine open space and large blocks of undeveloped open space.
¤ Open space corridors that provide connections between different
open space areas.
¤ Lands with a high level of scenic value.
COS-P1.4
Cluster new development where appropriate in order to maximize
preservation of land in open space. Clustering shall conform to the
guidelines established in Policies and Actions listed under Goal LU-7
in the Land Use Element.
COS-P1.5
Adhere to the following criteria for open space preserved through
direct actions of the Town, through open space and clustered devel-
opment requirements and incentives, and through the development
review process:
¤ Provide the maximum possible degree of community benefit, as
expressed through the Vision for Truckee and the guiding princi-
ples, goals and policies of the General Plan.
¤ Preserve open space that, to the greatest possible extent, occurs in
large blocks and is contiguous and connected.
¤ Provide the greatest possible level of public access while respect-
ing private property rights, sensitive habitat values, and safety
concerns.
¤ Provide maximum benefit in terms of habitat preservation.
¤ Enhance the overall character of Truckee as a scenic, mountain
community.
Goal COS-3 Protect and increase the amount of pristine open space in and around
Truckee.
COS-P3.2 Support appropriate trail construction to provide public access to
and across wilderness and other pristine open space areas.
Goal COS-8 Provide or support a comprehensive, high quality system of parks and
other recreational open space facilities in Truckee.
COS-P8.1
Require land or in-lieu fees for parks to be provided by new devel-
opment at a minimum ratio of 5 acres per thousand population, to
conform with standards established by the Town in accordance with
the Quimby Act.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
TABLE 4.13-4 TOWN OF TRUCKEE GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES
RELEVANT TO PARK AND RECREATION SERVICES
(CONTINUED)
4.13-32
Policy or
Goal No. Goals and Policies
COS-P8.2
Support efforts to create a new regional park, neighborhood parks in
new neighborhoods, and at least an additional two new neighbor-
hood parks for existing neighborhoods in Truckee.
Goal COS-9 Link open space areas in Truckee through a well-connected network of
open space corridors and trails.
COS-P9.1
Provide for links between open space areas, both within Truckee and
beyond the Town limits, to create contiguous habitat areas and en-
hance public access through greater connectivity.
COS-P9.2
Support the development and construction of a town-wide system of
trails and bikeways, including, as priorities, the development of the
Donner Lake/Truckee River parkway (see Goal COS-10), and the
establishment of trails linking the Downtown with the Gateway
Area and surrounding developed areas.
COS-P9.3 Require new development to incorporate trail corridors identified in
the Trails & Bikeways Master Plan into the overall project site plan.
COS-P9.4
Preserve existing open space corridors, and connections to adjacent
open space areas, and integrate publicly accessible trails and open
space corridors into new development to the extent feasible.
Source: Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan.
vi. Town of Truckee Impact Fee Program
In accordance with California Government Code sections 66000-66025, the
Town of Truckee administers development impact fees through its AB1600
Impact Fee Program. These fees are levied on all new development to pro-
vide funding for the provision of parks and recreation facilities and other
needed services in the Town. As of November 1, 2011 the facilities impact
fee for a single-family unit is $2,602 and $1,586 for a multi-family unit.39
39 Town of Truckee, Fee Schedules, http://www.townoftruckee.com/index.
aspx?page=15, retrieved November 8, 2011.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
4.13-33
2. Existing Conditions
The Town of Truckee and the surrounding area outside the Town limit, in-
cluding United States Forest Land, State Parks, and other State protected
lands located within approximately 4 miles of the Town’s center, offer a wide
variety of public and privately operated summer and winter recreational ven-
ues.
As identified in Table 4.13-5 and discussed below, 120 acres40 of publicly-
owned and operated parks and recreational facilities are located within the
Town limit.
a. Truckee Donner Recreation and Park District
The majority of Truckee’s parks are operated by the Truckee Donner Recrea-
tion and Parks District (TDRPD). The TDRPD was founded in 1963 as a
Special District to provide parks and recreation facilities in eastern Nevada
County.
The TDRPD currently owns and maintains 15 parks and recreational facili-
ties in their service area, and is actively working to expand services. The
TDRPD together with a coalition of local community leaders and the Town
of Truckee have collaborated to develop a Next Step for Truckee Plan to create
additional hiking, walking, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, and biking
trails that safely connect neighborhoods with downtown and other destina-
tions; provide a performing arts facility for music, dance, and theater pro-
grams for children, teens, adults, and seniors; and add a year-round aquatic
facility to the new community center for swim lessons, lap swimming, com-
petitions, recreational swimming, and senior swim and therapy programs.
The Next Step for Truckee Plan proposes to create a new 1½-mile paved trail
connecting Tahoe Donner to downtown and complete the Truckee River
Legacy Trail to Glenshire with a paved trail for walking, biking, cross-
country skiing, snowshoeing and running along the Truckee River as well as a
safe and green alternative transportation option to and from Glenshire. The
40 This acreage does not include the Donner Memorial State Park.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
4.13-34
TABLE 4.13-5 TRUCKEE PUBLIC PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES
Name Acres Features
Parks
Billy Rose Park 0.3 Playground, picnic tables
Donner Memorial State
Park 1,750* Museum, beach, campground, trails, fish-
ing
Donner Lake Boat Launch
Facility 1.5 Boat ramps, floating dock, fish cleaning
station
Donner Lake Public Piers 2.5 37 public piers
Glenshire Park 6 Baseball/softball field, open turf
Meadow Park 6 Ball-fields, picnic area, playground
Riverview Sports Park 31 Sportsfields, baseball diamond, soccer
field, BMX track
Shoreline Park 1.6 Fishing dock, boat launch
Truckee River Regional
Park 62
Skate park, ice-skating rink, volleyball,
nature and river trails, rodeo arena, am-
phitheater
West End Beach 10 Pavilion, swim area, fishing area, play-
ground, volleyball
Other Facilities
Activity Center -- Classrooms, pool tables, outdoor patio
Community Center --
TDRPD office, meeting rooms, auditori-
um, gym, fitness area, running track,
kitchen, playground
Community Arts Center --
Future plans include building a theatre in
place of the current gym and providing
arts, music and drama classes.
Community Swimming
Pool -- 15x25 yard pool, diving board
Veterans Building -- Meeting rooms, kitchen/dining area, in-
door basketball court
Truckee High School and
Middle School -- Athletic fields, track, basketball hoops
Alder Creek Middle School -- Basketball hoops, soccer field, outdoor
amphitheater
* Includes acreage outside of Truckee Town limits in Placer County
** With the opening of the new Community Recreation Center in December of 2009, the exist-
ing Community Center, located at 10046 Church Street in Truckee, is becoming the Community
Arts Center.
Source: Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan and Truckee Donner Park and Recreation District
website, http://www.tdrpd.com/index.html, retrieved September 2011.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
4.13-35
Truckee River Legacy Trail is currently 2¼ miles spanning the Truckee River
on south side from Downtown to Glenshire.41 The proposed extension
would complete the segment from the Truckee River Regional Park to Glen-
shire. The plan extension would be funded by a bond measure that would be
matched with funding from TDRPD and private grants.42
b. Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District
Schools play an important function as recreational facilities, but their primary
function is education. As such, the schools may provide limited public access
to swimming pools, gymnasiums, and other facilities. The TTUSD owns and
operates recreational facilities within the Town limit. Students in the project
area would have access to the Truckee High School athletic fields, pool, run-
ning track, and basketball facilities, and Alder Creek Middle School basket-
ball and volleyball facilities, soccer fields, and outdoor amphitheater.
c. State Parks
The Donner Memorial State Park is the closest state park to the Town and is
partially within the Town limit. Donner Memorial State Park is located on
Donner Lake. The park includes a public boat ramp operated by the
TDRPD and fishing is permitted from the park. The park also offers fishing
boat and other watersport equipment rentals through a private vendor. Ap-
proximately 2½ miles of hiking trails link to the Emigrant Trail that leads up
to U.S. Forest Service and the Pacific Crest trails beyond the park. Camping
facilities in the park include 154 sites, day use and picnic tables are also pro-
vided. The Park also includes the Emigrant Trail Museum and Pioneer Mon-
ument and provides groomed cross-country trails for winter use.43
41 Town of Truckee, 2007. Truckee Trails & Bikeways Master Plan, Appendix B,
Exhibit 1 – Recreational Trail Segment Descriptions, page 6.
42 The Next Step for Truckee, An Update on the Plan to Take the Next Step to
Provide Services and Amenities for Truckee Residents, Truckee Donner Park and
Recreation District website, http://www.tdrpd.com/index.html, retrieved September
2011.
43 California State Parks, Donner Memorial State Park, http://www.parks.
ca.gov/?page_id=503, accessed on April 5, 2012.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
4.13-36
d. United States Forest Land
The Town is surrounded by the Truckee Ranger District of the Tahoe Na-
tional Forest (TNF). The TNF comprises 800,000 acres of public land inter-
spersed with 400,000 acres of private land in a checker board ownership pat-
tern. Recreational opportunities provided by the TNF include camping, hik-
ing, picnicking, backpacking, equestrian use, snowmobiling, back country
skiing and snowshoeing, and off-highway vehicle use. Several commercial
downhill ski resorts are operated with special-use permits on TNF land. 44
e. Existing Town Trail System
Publicly accessible trail systems in Truckee and the surrounding area include
a network of informal trails and well-known trails, such as the Pacific Crest
Trail, Commemorative Emigrant Trail, Tahoe Rim Trail, and Sawtooth Rim
Trail. According to the TBMP, the current Truckee recreational trail system,
including the network of trails and unpaved roads on the project site, is char-
acterized by a series of informal trails that lack cohesiveness or planned con-
nections. This network extends into adjacent lands on all sides of the project
site and subsequently, the project site is accessed by surrounding subdivision
residents for year-round unauthorized use, such as cross-country and back-
country skiers in the winter and hikers, mountain bikers, and equestrians in
other seasons.
f. Privately Owned Recreation Facilities
Several privately-owned and operated recreational facilities are located in
close proximity to the Town boundary, such as Northstar Lake Tahoe, which
offers year-round recreation opportunities, and several privately-owned facili-
ties located within Town boundaries, such as the ten golf courses within
6 miles of the Town’s center. Although public use of these facilities, where
allowed, is fee based, they nonetheless offer additional recreational opportuni-
ties for Truckee’s residents. Additional recreational opportunities located
both within and adjacent to Town boundaries, including skiing, mountain
44 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Tahoe National
Forest, http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/tahoe/home, accessed on April 5, 2012.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
4.13-37
biking, and golfing are provided by private operators, and are open to the
public.
3. Standards of Significance
The proposed project would have a significant impact with regard to other
public facilities if it would:
¤ Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provi-
sion of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain ac-
ceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives
for park and recreational services.
¤ Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated.
¤ Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment.
4. Impact Discussion
Based on the existing estimated population of approximately 16,200, the cur-
rent parks ratio in Truckee is approximately 7.4 acres per thousand popula-
tion.45 The project is anticipated to generate 2.529 persons per household,
which would result in approximately 468 new residents,46 including approxi-
mately 66 school-aged children,47 and thus, would create an additional de-
45 Ratio is based on locally-operated, public parks, and does not include the
State Park, private recreational facilities, or TTUSD properties.
46 Town of Truckee General Plan 2007-2014 Housing Element, Appendix A –
Housing Profile, page HA-7.
47 Capital Program Management, Inc., TTUSD Facilities Master Plan Draft
Report, Table 14 and 15, Student Yield Rates for Single-Family and Multi-Family Res-
idential, August 22, 2007.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
4.13-38
mand of 2.34 acres of dedicated parkland.48 Further, consistent with Devel-
opment Code 18.46.050 standard, the project would be required to dedicate
106.5 acres of open space.
Consistent with General Plan goals and policies identified in Table 4.13-4
above, the project would preserve and connect open space, provide connectiv-
ity and recreational opportunities through a series of publicly accessible trails,
and provide a neighborhood recreation center.
a. Proposed Open Space
The proposed project would provide 176.17 acres of public open space to be
permanently reserved as part of the future Canyon Springs Home Owner’s
Association-owned open space/common area. The project’s dedicated open
space would exceed the 50 percent minimum required by 69.67 acres or 65.4
percent.49 The proposed open space would connect to the adjacent open
space on the project’s western border.
b. Proposed Trail System
As shown on Figure 4.13-1, the proposed project would include a publicly
accessible trail system made up of 3.83 miles of 2-foot-wide soft-surface earth-
en trails and 0.76 mile of 12-foot-wide gravel trails.
As described in Chapter 3 of this Draft EIR, the proposed trail system is con-
sistent with the TBMP.50 The proposed 4.5-mile trail system would be pub-
licly accessible for summer and winter non-motorized uses such as hiking,
running, mountain biking, equestrian use, cross-country skiing, and snow-
shoeing. Motorized use of the trails by off-road vehicles, dirt bikes, and
48 0.005 (5 acres per 1000 residents) x 185 (residential units) x 2.529 (expected
household size) = 2.34 acres.
49 Town of Truckee Municipal Code, Title 18, Development Code, Chapter
18.46 Open Space/Cluster Requirements, Section 18.46.050, Minimum Open Space.
50 Town of Truckee, 2007, Truckee Trails & Bikeway Master Plan, Appendix
D, Exhibit 1, Existing and Proposed Trail and Bikeway Network, Section 42, as of
May 17, 2007.
Source: Design Group Inc.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
FIGURE 4.13-1
PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE TRAIL MAP
NORTH
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
4.13-40
snowmobiles would not be permitted on the project site. As illustrated on
Figure 4.13-1 in Chapter 3 of this Draft EIR, the proposed trail system in-
cludes many internal access points and four public access points that utilize
existing trail alignments to provide connectivity to the surrounding commu-
nity for permitted and lawful use of on-site trails by the public. The pro-
posed trail signage would identify trail access points, permitted trail uses, and
trail distance and provide educational information and trail use protocol. A
detailed discussion on proposed trail systems is provided in Chapter 3 of this
Draft EIR.
c. Proposed Recreation Center
While the Town does not require recreation amenities for new subdivisions,
as described in Chapter 3 of this Draft EIR, the project includes a 24,015-
square-foot (0.55-acre) recreational area to be centrally located within the pro-
ject site that would be available for use by future residents and the public. A
detailed discussion on proposed trail systems and recreational features is pro-
vided in Chapter 3 of this Draft EIR.
While the project would eliminate the current unauthorized year-round use
of the informal trail network on the project site, the project would create a
permitted and lawful publicly accessible 4.5-mile trail system and a recreation
facility, and preserve approximately 176 acres of open space that will ulti-
mately increase the overall amount of publicly accessible recreational facilities
in the Truckee area. Therefore, considering the project’s provision of public-
ly available recreational amenities and consistency with applicable General
Plan policies, in conjunction with the collection of applicable Town Devel-
oper Impact Fees that support the Town’s park and recreation fund, Quimby
Fees and TDRPD Park and Recreational Fees, the project’s impacts on the
Town’s recreational facilities would be less than significant and no mitigation
measures are required.
5. Cumulative Impacts
The project in conjunction with the Town buildout identified in the General
Plan would cumulatively increase the demand for park and recreational ser-
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
4.13-41
vices in the Town. At buildout, under implementation of the General Plan,
projected population levels are 28,520 individuals with 20,082 projected dwell-
ing units and new commercial development; subsequently, it is anticipated
that approximately 14,270 additional people will reside in Truckee. Howev-
er, as with the project, the applicants of the new projects would be required
to preserve open space, provide land or in-lieu fees for parks at a minimum
ratio of 5 acres per thousand population, and pay Town Developer Impact
Fees, Quimby Fees, and TDRPD Park and Recreational Fees, which provides
funding for the provision of parks and recreation facilities and other needed
services in the Town, and would fully mitigate any impact that the new pro-
jects would have on park and recreational services in the Town. As stated
previously, the project’s impacts to park and recreational services would be
less than significant. Therefore, the project would not contribute to any po-
tential cumulative impacts and cumulative impacts to park and recreational
services would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.
6. Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Project and cumulative impacts related to park and recreational services
would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are warranted.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
4.13-42
4.14 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-1
This chapter describes the existing traffic, circulation, and transportation
conditions in the Town of Truckee, addressing vehicular traffic, as well as
parking transit, pedestrian, bicycle, and aviation facilities, and evaluates po-
tential impacts of the proposed project. The information and analysis in this
chapter is primarily based on the following document, which is included in
Appendix I, Traffic Data, of this Draft EIR:
¤ Canyon Springs Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by LSC Transportation
Consultants, Inc., August 27, 2012.
A. Regulatory Framework
This section summarizes key regulations and programs applicable to transpor-
tation and traffic in Truckee.
1. Federal Regulations
There are no federal regulations pertaining to traffic and transportation that
apply to this project.
2. State Laws and Regulations
a. Caltrans District 3 Transportation Corridor Concept Report, Interstate
Route 80
The Interstate 80 Transportation Corridor Concept Report (TCCR) (2010) is
Caltrans long range (20-year) planning document for Interstate 80. Caltrans
owns, operates, and maintains Interstate 80, which provides the primary ac-
cess to Truckee, including the project site via Interstate 80 Segments 14 and
15. Segment 14 of Interstate 80 is a 4- to 6-lane freeway running 4.7 miles
from Donner Pass Road to Old Truckee Airport Road (Overland Trail), and
Segment 15 is a four-lane freeway that begins at Old Truckee Airport Road
(Overland Trail) in east Truckee and ends 11.2 miles to the northeast at the
Nevada County/Sierra County Line. The most important information in-
cluded within the Interstate 80 TCCR is the level of service standards, con-
cept, and ultimate facilities, and a list of programmed, planned, and needed
projects.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-2
3. Local Regulations and Policies
a. Nevada County Regional Transportation Plan
The Nevada County Transportation Commission (NCTC) is the designated
Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) for Nevada County creat-
ed pursuant to Title 7.88 of the State of California Government Code, Section
67920. As the RTPA for Nevada County, the NCTC coordinates transporta-
tion planning for Grass Valley, Nevada City, Nevada County, and the Town
of Truckee.1 The NCTC acts as an autonomous agency in filling the man-
dates of the Transportation Development Act.
As the RTPA for Nevada County, California State law requires the NCTC to
prepare, adopt, and submit an updated Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)
every five-years. The 2010 update of the Nevada County RTP reflects the
latest project funding and planning assumptions, and preliminarily addresses
the new requirements of Assembly Bill 32 (California Global Warming Solu-
tions Act of 2006) regulating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with
construction of improvements identified in the RTP. The RTP Policy Ele-
ment identifies the transportation goals and policies to meet the needs of the
region and reflects the consideration of environmental, social, and economic
goals.
b. Town of Truckee Trails and Bikeways Master Plan (May 2007)
The Town’s Trails and Bikeways Master Plan (TBMP) was adopted on April 4,
2002 (Council Resolution No. 2002-17) and amended on May 17, 2007
(Council Resolution No. 2007-20). The TBMP is intended to supplement and
implement the broader Truckee Donner Recreation Park District Master Plan
by providing the more-detailed analysis necessary for development of a town-
wide trail and bikeway system designed to increase recreational, educational,
and alternative transportation opportunities for the benefit of local residents
and visitors to the Truckee area. The goals and policies of the TBMP provide
guidance for the planning, development and management for the type, design,
and general location of trail corridors within the Town.
1 Nevada County Transportation Commission Website, retrieved August 5, 2011
from http://www.nctc.ca.gov/About-NCTC/index.html.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-3
c. Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan
The applicable General Plan goals and policies that relate to transportation
and traffic resources are listed in Table 4.14-1 and a detailed policy consisten-
cy discussion is presented in Chapter 4.10, Land Use Planning, of this Draft
EIR.
The Town applies the criteria and thresholds shown in Table CIR-6 of the
General Plan to development projects to determine the need for a traffic im-
pact analysis to be conducted and to determine if a project’s impact would be
significant. The criteria from Table CIR-6 of the Truckee General Plan are
listed in Table 4.14-2.
d. Town of Truckee Traffic Fee Program
The Town of Truckee maintains a traffic fee program, which requires entities
initiating new development within the Town to pay traffic impact fees. The
fees collected through this program, in addition to other funding sources,
allow the Town to construct transportation facilities needed. The impact is
based upon a comparison between the projected vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
it generates and the VMT generated by a proposed project. The current fee
per single-family dwelling unit is $5,395 and per multi-family unit is $3,345.2
The fee is due to the Town at the time of issuance of building permits.
e. Nevada County General Plan
The Nevada County General Plan was approved by the Nevada County Board
of Supervisors in 1996 and subsequently amended in 2008 (Safety) and 2010
(Circulation/Housing). The Nevada County General Plan sets forth standards
for level of service for rural intersections and roadways. The level of service
standards are described below under the Standards of Significance.
2 Traffic and Facility Impact Fees, Effective Date, November 1, 2011,
http://www.townoftruckee.com/index.aspx?page=15, retrieved November 30, 2011.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-4
TABLE 4.14-1 TRUCKEE GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES
PERTAINING TO TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Policy or
Goal No. Goals and Policies
Goal LU-5
Encourage a mix of land uses in the Town to promote a vibrant com-
munity and to reduce traffic, while addressing the need to minimize
land use conflicts.
Policy
LU-P5.3
Support development of neighborhood centers through establish-
ment of uses and facilities that provide a direct benefit to the
neighborhood, such as educational and recreation facilities, day
care services, places of worship, community meeting centers, fire
stations, small parks, libraries and other public facilities,
telcenters, and neighborhood commercial uses.
Goal CIR-2
Maintain adequate level of service on Truckee’s roadways and inter-
sections to ensure the safe and efficient movement of people and goods
throughout the Town.
Policy
CIR-P2.1
Establish and maintain a Level of Service D or better on road seg-
ments and for total intersection movements in portions of the
Town outside of the Downtown Specific Plan Area.
Establish and maintain a Level of Service E or better on arterial
and collector road segments and for total intersection movements
within the Downtown Specific Plan Area.
Throughout the Town, individual turning movements at unsignal-
ized intersections shall not be allowed to reach LOS F and to ex-
ceed a cumulative vehicle delay of four vehicle hours. Both of
these conditions shall be met for traffic operations to be consid-
ered unacceptable.
Policy
CIR-P2.2
In addition to the standards described in Policy 2.1, the criteria
and thresholds shown in Table CIR-6 shall be applied to future
development projects to determine the need for a traffic impact
analysis to be conducted and to determine if a project’s traffic
impact is found to be significant.
Table CIR-6, Traffic Impact Analysis Criteria Category 3: Subdi-
vision of 11 or more lots, multi-family development of 11 or more
units, commercial/ industrial development of 7,500 square feet or
more, or equivalent development.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
TABLE 4.14-1 TRUCKEE GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES
PERTAINING TO TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
(CONTINUED)
4.14-5
Policy or
Goal No. Goals and Policies
Policy
CIR-P2.3
Allow flexibility and exceptions to the LOS standards described in
Policy P2.1 for the following intersections:
♦ Bridge Street/Donner Pass Road
♦ Bridge Street/River Street
♦ Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road
Exceptions to the standards may be allowed in cases where the
Town finds that improvements needed to achieve acceptable LOS:
(a) should be deferred in order to better coordinate with the plan-
ning and implementation of other projects including the Railyard;
(b) will result in unacceptable impacts (e.g. requiring demolition of
historic buildings, relocation of businesses); (c) are not feasible to
construct; or (d) should be deferred or lowered in order to better
implement other transportation control measures including alter-
native transportation modes.
Exceptions should only be allowed after all feasible resources and
options to implement needed improvements have been explored
and exhausted.
Policy
CIR-P2.4
Improve connectivity throughout the Town's roadway network,
through roadway improvements, while minimizing environmen-
tal, circulation, and residential neighborhood impacts. This
should include:
♦ New and improved links between roadways of the same classifi-
cation.
♦ New and/or improved links between higher and lower capacity
roadways where such connections would not negatively impact
the lower capacity roadway's operations or local neighborhood
character, would be consistent with community character and
environmental goals described elsewhere in the General Plan,
and would not result in redesignation of a lower classification
roadway to a higher classification, unless shown as such on the
Circulation Plan.
♦ Discouraging the use of local and residential neighborhood
roadways as through routes, particularly for commercial and in-
dustrial traffic.
♦ Requiring that new development maximizes connectivity of
local streets within the development itself, and makes connec-
tions to the adjacent street network and neighborhood areas.
Goal CIR-3 Minimize the impacts of new development on the existing roadway
network.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
TABLE 4.14-1 TRUCKEE GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES
PERTAINING TO TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
(CONTINUED)
4.14-6
Policy or
Goal No. Goals and Policies
Policy
CIR-P3.1
Require the preparation of traffic impact analyses to identify im-
pacts and mitigation measures for projects that may result in sig-
nificant traffic impacts, as specified in Table CIR-6. In these anal-
yses, level of service shall be computed according to the planning
methodology documented in Special Report 209: Highway Capacity
Manual, published by the Transportation Research Board in 2000,
or as amended in subsequent updates. Cumulative impacts shall
be modeled buildout of the General Plan.
Policy
CIR-P3.2
Require the assessment of construction-related project impacts in
traffic impact analyses that assesses and adequately mitigates the
effect of construction traffic on the roadway network, as well as
any potential disruption to or re-routing of traffic that might be
needed during project construction.
Policy
CIR-P3.3
Require all new development projects to adequately mitigate iden-
tified impacts through construction of improvements and/or
payment of traffic impact mitigation fees. Mitigation of signifi-
cant project-related impacts may require improvements beyond
those addressed by the current Capital Improvement Program and
traffic impact mitigation fee program.
Policy
CIR-P3.4
Ensure that new streets and roads are dedicated and constructed
according to roadway design and access standards adopted by the
Town.
Goal CIR-4
Create new developments that are integrated into the circulation net-
work and promote connectivity within and between community are-
as.
Policy
CIR-P4.1
Require transportation systems planned and constructed in con-
junction with significant development projects, including roads,
trails, bikeways, and other improvements, to provide links to the
existing transportation network.
Policy
CIR-P4.2
Require planning for land use and transportation systems in new
growth areas that provides opportunities for residents, employees,
and those without vehicles to accomplish many of their trips by
walking, bicycling, or using transit.
Goal CIR-6
Minimize potentially adverse impacts of transportation infrastructure
and parking facilities on Truckee’s community character and im-
portant environmental and cultural resources.
Policy
CIR-P6.1
Locate, construct, and maintain new roads and roadway im-
provements so as to prevent adverse impacts to water quality and
significant biological, scenic, and historic resources.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
TABLE 4.14-1 TRUCKEE GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES
PERTAINING TO TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
(CONTINUED)
4.14-7
Policy or
Goal No. Goals and Policies
Policy
CIR-P6.3
Maintain Donner Pass Road at a three-lane cross-section (two lanes
of traffic with a left-turn lane). New projects that could add signif-
icant traffic to Donner Pass Road must demonstrate that cumula-
tive traffic impacts will not result in the need to widen Donner
Pass Road.
Goal CIR-10
Provide a safe, comprehensive, and integrated system of facilities for
pedestrians and cyclists and other non-motorized modes of transporta-
tion.
Policy
CIR-P10.2
Implement the network of trails and bikeways described in the
Trails and Bikeways Master Plan, with priority given to establish-
ment of a trail from Donner Lake along Donner Creek and the
Truckee River to the eastern Town limit. This cross-town trail
would serve as the main "artery" of the Town's trail network,
with other trails connecting to it along its length, and would pro-
vide a critical link to major regional trails including a trail to the
west that connects to Donner Summit and the Pacific Crest Trail,
and to the east to trails that follow the Truckee River to Nevada.
Policy
CIR-P10.3
Identify and implement new pedestrian facilities beyond those
identified in the Trails and Bikeways Master Plan and Downtown
Streetscape Plan. These facilities may include, but not be limited
to, pedestrian facilities along Donner Pass Road between Cold
Stream Road and South Shore Drive, along Highway 89 South,
and along West River Street.
Policy
CIR-P10.5
Link new trails and bikeways with other bikeways, parks and
open space areas to provide safe and continuous routes.
Policy
CIR-P10.10
Require major development projects to include pedestrian facilities
and bikeways.
Policy
CIR-P10.11
Enforce pedestrian and bicycle access standards for all new devel-
opment and require developers to finance and install pedestrian
walkways, equestrian trails, and multi-use trails in new develop-
ment, as appropriate and necessary to address circulation needs.
Consider and work towards a mean by which the requirements of
the Trails and Bikeways Master Plan can be met by affordable
housing projects.
Policy
CIR-P10.12
Provide facilities that separate bicycle and pedestrian traffic from
vehicular traffic whenever it is feasible to do so.
Goal CIR-11 Enhance the existing bus and rail transit system in Truckee.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
TABLE 4.14-1 TRUCKEE GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES
PERTAINING TO TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
(CONTINUED)
4.14-8
Policy or
Goal No. Goals and Policies
Policy
CIR-P11.1
Require new development to incorporate features that encourage
transit use, including shelters and safe routes to transit stops, and
ensure that right-of-way for future transit access is reserved in
plans for new growth areas.
Goal SAF-4 Protect lives and property from risks associated with wildland and
urban fire.
Policy
SAF-P4.7
Ensure that the development review process addresses wildland
fire risk, including assessment of both construction- and project
related fire risks particularly in areas of the Town most susceptible
to fire hazards. Cooperate with the TFPD in reviewing fire safety
plans and provisions in new development, including aspects such
as emergency access, site design for maintenance of defensible
space, and use of non-combustible materials.
Source: Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan.
B. Existing Conditions
This section documents the existing setting and operational traffic conditions
in the vicinity of the project site, providing a foundation for comparison to
future conditions.
1. Circulation System
a. Vehicular Circulation
The Town of Truckee is located in the Lake Tahoe region, along Interstate 80
approximately 90 miles northeast of Sacramento, California, and 34 miles
west of Reno, Nevada. In addition to Interstate 80, State Route 89, and State
Route 267 are the two major regional routes serving Truckee. Beyond these
major regional facilities, a series of arterial, connector, and local roadways
constitute the roadway network in the traffic study area.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-9
TABLE 4.14-2 TOWN OF TRUCKEE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS AND CRITERIA
Project Type
Traffic Analysis
Required?
Traffic Impact Analysis Criteria
Arterials and Collectors Local Roads
Existing Level of Service
Acceptablea
Existing Level of Service
Unacceptableb
Project Would Add Traffic
to a Local Roadway
Category 1
Single-family home, duplex, and
second units on existing lots
No Development Allowed Development Allowed Development Allowed
Category 2
Subdivision of 10 or less lots, multi-
family development of 10 or less
units, commercial/ industrial
development of less than 7,500 s.f., or
equivalent development.
No Development Allowed Development Allowed Development Allowed
Category 3
Subdivision of 11 or more lots, multi-
family development of 11 or more
units, commercial/ industrial
development of 7,500 s.f. or more, or
equivalent development.
Yes, if determined
necessary by
Town Engineer
Development allowed if:
¤ Project traffic does not
degrade LOS to unacceptable
level of service; OR
¤ Project constructs
improvements to impacted
roads and intersections as
identified in Table CIR-5; OR
¤ Improvements to impacted
roads and intersections are
identified in the CIP, fully
funded, and scheduled for
completion within three
years.
Development allowed if:
¤ Project constructs
improvements to impacted
roads and intersections as
identified in Table CIR-5;
OR
¤ Improvements to impacted
roads and intersections are
identified in the CIP, fully
funded, and scheduled for
completion within three
years.
Development allowed if:
¤ Project does not increase
traffic on local road by more
than 1,000 average daily
trips; OR
¤ Project increases traffic on
local road by more than
1,000 average daily trips, but
the increase in average daily
trips is less than 50%.
AND
¤ The provisions of
Circulation Element Policy
P2.4 can be met.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
TABLE 4.14-2 TOWN OF TRUCKEE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS AND CRITERIA (CONTINUED)
4.14-10
Project Type
Traffic Analysis
Required?
Traffic Impact Analysis Criteria
Arterials and Collectors Local Roads
Existing Level of Service
Acceptablea
Existing Level of Service
Unacceptableb
Project Would Add Traffic
to a Local Roadway
Category 4
Special planning areas - PC1, PC3,
McIver Hill, Hilltop, Mill Site, PRD-
1, PRD-2, PRD-3.
Yes Development allowed if:
¤ Project traffic does not
degrade LOS to unacceptable
level of service; OR
¤ Project constructs
improvements to impacted
roads and intersections as
identified in Table CIR-5 to
maintain acceptable LOS.
AND
¤ If project generates traffic
volumes greater than
identified in General Plan
traffic model, project
constructs improvements to
impacted roads and
intersections as necessary to
achieve acceptable LOS for
buildout traffic volumes.
Development allowed if:
¤ Project constructs
improvements to impacted
roads and intersections as
identified in Table CIR-5.
AND
¤ If project generates traffic
volumes greater than
identified in General Plan
traffic model, project
constructs improvements to
impacted roads and
intersections as necessary to
achieve acceptable LOS for
buildout traffic volumes.
Development allowed if:
¤ Project does not increase
traffic on local road by more
than 1,000 average daily
trips; OR
¤ Project increases traffic on
local road by more than
1,000 average daily trips, but
the increase in average daily
trips is less than 50%.
AND
¤ The provisions of
Circulation Element Policy
P2.4 can be met.
a Project would add traffic to roads and intersections with acceptable levels of service and capacity to accommodate additional traffic.
b Project would add traffic to roads and intersections with existing unacceptable levels of service with no capacity to accommodate additional traffic.
Source: Truckee 2025 General Plan, Table CIR-6.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-11
The major components of the roadway system in the project area are de-
scribed below consistent with the definitions and classifications identified in
the Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan.3
b. Study Area Roadways
The following describes the study area roadways that were analyzed in pro-
ject Traffic Impact Analysis. These are shown in Figure 4.14-1.
¤ Interstate 80: Interstate 80 provides interregional highway connections
east to Reno, Nevada and beyond, and west to Sacramento and the San
Francisco Bay Area. The Town lies along both sides of Interstate 80.
This section of Interstate 80 is currently a four-lane divided highway with
limited truck climbing lanes, and with a posted speed limit of 65 miles
per hour. There are a total of eight interchanges serving Truckee on In-
terstate 80, including the Donner Lake Road and Hirschdale Road inter-
changes. The Glenshire area is served by two interchanges: the Donner
Pass Road (Eastern) interchange and the Hirschdale Road interchange.
¤ Donner Pass Road: Donner Pass Road is a minor arterial road that ex-
tends from the intersection with State Route 89 North (east of Down-
town Truckee) westward to Donner Lake, Donner Summit, and Soda
Springs. This roadway provides a vital link for local circulation in the
Town. At its nearest point to the project site, Donner Pass Road is a
two-lane roadway accessing Historic Downtown Truckee to the west and
the Pioneer Trail area, Interstate 80 and State Route 89 North to the east.
At its intersection with Glenshire Drive, this roadway provides a single
through lane in each direction with a dedicated left-turn lane for left-
turns onto Glenshire Drive. The posted speed limit is 45 miles per hour.
¤ Glenshire Drive: Glenshire Drive is a two-lane minor arterial roadway
providing access between the Truckee commercial core on the west
through the Glenshire area to Hirschdale Road on the east.
3 2025 General Plan, Circulation Element, Table CIR-3 Roadway Classification
Definitions, and Table CIR-4 Town of Truckee Roadway Classifications, page 4-20
and 4-21, respectively.
CALIFORNIA
0
0
5
4
1
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 GLENSHIREDR./
HIRSCHDALED.R6U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.15
78
6
3
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 HIRSCHDALERD./
I-80WESTBOUNDRAMPS8U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.
69
/
13
0
1 HIRSCHDALERD./
I-80EASTBOUNDRAMPS
BE08-I
7GLENSHIREDR./
SOMERSETDR.
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.
JACK
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
138/6411/6
69/130
1
J
A
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
GLENSHIREDR./
DONNERPASSRD.
DON
N
E
R
P
A
S
S
R
D
.
1
G
L
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
14
GLEN
S
H
I
R
E
R
.
D
S
O
M
E
R
S
E
T
D
R
.
JACKSVALLEYRD.
1,365 ,693
38/162
4/4
2,352/1,755
69/130
404/449
32/68
GLENSHIREDR./MARTIS
PEAKRD./WHITEHORSERD.
GLENSHIRE
WH
I
T
E
H
O
R
S
E
GL
E
N
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
HI
R
S
C
H
D
A
L
E
R
D
.
HI
R
S
C
H
D
A
L
E
R
D
.
.DRELADHCSRIH
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.
JAC
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1 GLENSHIREDR./2
MA
R
T
I
S
P
E
A
K
R
D
.
I-
8
0
W
B
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.
VSKCAJYELLA.DR
1
JA
C
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
GLENSHIREDR./
DORCHESTERDR.
.RDERIHSNELG
3
DO
R
C
H
E
S
T
E
R
D
R
.
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
2
DONNERPASSRD.EXTENSION
HIGHWAYS
STREETS
RAILROAD
LAKE
STUDYINTERSECTIONS
TRAFFICMOVEMENT
STOPSIGN
LEGEND
1
INMILES
SCALE0 .5
89
GLENS
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
TRUCKEE
80
80
267
SITEEDINBURGH
FIGURE 4.14-1
LANE CONFIGURATION AND TRAFFIC CONTROL
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., 2012.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-13
Glenshire Drive provides the only access to the Glenshire area both to
Truckee to the west and (with Hirschdale Road) to Interstate 80 and Re-
no to the east. This roadway also provides primary access to the Olym-
pic Heights subdivision west of Glenshire. The terrain along this road-
way is rolling, with a 6 percent grade near Donner Pass Road and near
the west entrance to Glenshire, an 11 percent grade near Wiltshire Lane,
and a 9 percent grade on the stretch between Martis Peak Road and
Hirschdale Road to the east. The posted speed limit on this roadway is
45 miles per hour from Donner Pass Road to the western entrance to the
Glenshire neighborhood. From the Glenshire entrance to a point east of
Somerset Drive, the posted speed limit is 30 miles per hour. The speed
limit is 25 miles per hour on the remaining segment of Glenshire Drive
to the east until it passes Whitehorse Road/Martis Peak Road (and enters
Nevada County), after which the speed limit is not posted.
¤ Dorchester Drive: Dorchester Drive is a minor collector street serving
the northern portion of Glenshire, extending about 1.4 miles between its
two intersections with Glenshire Drive. It provides access to Glenshire
Elementary School, Truckee Fire Protection District Station 95 (Glen-
shire), Glenshire General Store, other small commercial uses, as well as
the residential area in the northern portion of Glenshire. The speed limit
on Dorchester Drive is 25 miles per hour east of Rolands Way and 30
miles per hour west of Rolands Way.
¤ Somerset Drive/Courtenay Lane/Regency Circle/Edinburgh Drive:
These local roadways provide access to the residences in the southeastern
portion of Glenshire. The pavement width on these streets is approxi-
mately 26 feet, and the speed limit is 25 miles per hour.
¤ Martis Peak Road: This is a local roadway providing access from Glen-
shire Drive south to the gated Martis Peak Homeowners Association res-
idential area. The pavement width ranges from about 20 feet to 23 feet.
The gate is located approximately one-quarter mile south of the Glen-
shire Drive intersection.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-14
¤ Hirschdale Road: Hirschdale Road provides a connection from Glen-
shire to Interstate 80 and serves residences to the east of the Glenshire ar-
ea. Hirschdale Road is a two-lane roadway with a pavement width of
about 22 feet. The speed limit is not posted in the study area.
c. Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation
As described in the Town of Truckee TBMP and illustrated on the TBMP
Existing and Proposed Trail and Bikeway Network Map, the existing trails
and bikeways system includes recreational trails, Class I bike paths, Class II
bike lanes, and Class III bike routes.4 There are limited existing and proposed
trails and bicycle facilities in the project area. The Glenshire area has Class III
Bike Routes, and the proposed Recreational Trail (Surface TBD [to be deter-
mined]) that crosses the project site would link to the existing Class III Bike
Route at Glenshire Drive. In addition, there are proposed Class II Bike Lanes
proposed in the Glenshire area that would also link to the proposed recrea-
tional trail located on the project site.
As discussed in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Draft EIR, a well-
developed network of unpaved roads and trails is distributed throughout the
site. The project site is accessed by surrounding subdivision residents through
connecting trails and experiences year-round unauthorized use.
d. Transit
The Town of Truckee offers both Fixed Route and Dial-A-Ride bus service in
the greater Truckee area. These services provide a range of options for travel-
ers to access recreational, employment, shopping, and social service opportu-
nities. The Fixed Route Services vary by season. During the winter season
(mid December – mid April) a ski shuttle service is offered seven days per
week between Henness Flats, downtown Truckee, Sugar Bowl, Donner Ski
Ranch and Soda Springs ski resorts from approximately 6:15 a.m. to 12:00
4 A Class I Bike Path is a dedicated exclusive bike path meant for bike and pe-
destrian traffic. A Class II Bike Lane is a marked lane exclusively for bike travel on
roadways. A Class III Bike Route is sometimes marked. Bicycle riders must share the
roadway with other vehicles.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-15
p.m. as well as from 2:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. During the non-winter season
(mid-April to mid-December) buses serve the Truckee-Tahoe Airport, Pio-
neer Commerce Center, Downtown, Gateway Shopping Center, Donner
State Park and the west end of Donner Lake on a fixed hourly schedule from
9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., every day except
Sunday.
The Truckee Dial-A-Ride service is offered year round to the general public
with priority service for seniors and persons with disabilities. This paratrans-
it service is available for trips within the Town limits, over the same hours
and days as the fixed route service.
2. Analysis Methodology and Study Scenarios
a. Study Analysis Scenarios
The project Traffic Impact Study evaluated roadway segments and intersec-
tions in the project study area under the following four scenarios:
¤ Existing 2011 Without Project
¤ Existing 2011 With Project
¤ Future 2031 Without Project
¤ Future 2031 With Project
b. Study Roadway Segments
The following eleven roadway segments in the project area were evaluated:
1. Glenshire Drive between Donner Pass Road and Highland Avenue
2. Glenshire Drive between Highland Avenue and Dorchester Drive (west)
3. Glenshire Drive between Dorchester Drive (west) and Somerset Drive
4. Glenshire Drive between Somerset Drive and Martis Peak Road
5. Glenshire Drive between Martis Peak Road and Hirschdale Road
6. Hirschdale Road between Glenshire Drive and Interstate 80 Westbound
Ramps
7. Martis Peak Road between Glenshire Drive and Project Access
8. Somerset Drive between Glenshire Drive and Courtenay Lane
9. Courtenay Lane between Somerset Drive and Regency Circle
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-16
10. Regency Circle between Courtenay Lane and Edinburgh Drive
11. Edinburgh Drive
c. Study Intersections
The following eight intersections in the project area were evaluated:
1. Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road
2. Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road Extension (future intersection)
3. Glenshire Drive/Dorchester Drive (western intersection)
4. Glenshire Drive/Somerset Drive
5. Glenshire Drive/Whitehorse Road/Martis Peak Road
6. Glenshire Drive/Hirschdale Road
7. Interstate 80 Eastbound Ramps/Hirschdale Road
8. Interstate 80 Westbound Ramps/Hirschdale Road
d. 2011 Traffic Volumes
For the project Traffic Impact Analysis and consistent with Town practices,
impacts on roadways are determined by measuring the effect that site-
generated traffic has on traffic operations at the study intersections and along
study roadways during the tenth-highest summer weekday PM peak hour
(approximately 4:00 to 6:00 p.m.). An analysis of AM peak-hour (approxi-
mately 7:00 to 9:00 a.m.) conditions is also included for the Glenshire
Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection. Furthermore, while the total intersec-
tion volumes are the highest in the summer tourism months, the volumes on
the minor approaches within Glenshire are generally higher during school
peak hours. Therefore, the AM and PM peak hours of school-related traffic
activity were analyzed for the following three study intersections within the
Glenshire residential area:
¤ Glenshire Drive/Dorchester Drive (west)
¤ Glenshire Drive/Somerset Drive
¤ Glenshire Drive/Whitehorse Road/Martis Peak Road
As the traffic volumes on Glenshire Drive at the outskirts of the Glenshire
neighborhoods are higher during the AM and PM commuter hours (approx-
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-17
imately 7:30 to 9:15 a.m. and 2:30 to 4:15 p.m.), there is no need to analyze
the school peak hours at intersections outside the Glenshire community.
i. 2011 Summer PM Peak-hour Traffic Volumes Without Project
2011 peak-hour intersection turning-movement volumes without the project
are shown on Figure 4.14-2. These volumes are considered to be conservative,
given that a comparison of the 2006 to 2009 PM peak-hour traffic volumes
through the Donner Pass Road/Glenshire Drive intersection indicates no
growth in the total intersection volume. A complete description of the traffic
count methodology, including adjustments to reflect current conditions in
accordance with Town practices are described in the Traffic Impact Analysis
(see Appendix I of this Draft EIR).
ii. 2010-2011 School Season Traffic Volumes Without Project
School season intersection counts were conducted during the 2010-2011
school year at the following three intersections:
¤ Glenshire Drive/Dorchester Drive West
¤ Glenshire Drive/Somerset Drive
¤ Glenshire Drive/Whitehorse Road/Martis Peak Road
The morning counts were conducted from 7:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m., and the
afternoon counts were conducted from 2:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., in order to
capture the busiest periods of school-related traffic activity.5 As shown on
Table 4.14-3, the volumes along Glenshire Drive are generally highest during
the summer season, whereas the volumes along Dorchester Drive (the road-
way providing access to the Glenshire Elementary School) are highest during
the school season.
e. 2031 Traffic Volumes
The future (i.e. cumulative) setting associated with the traffic analysis is based
on the Town of Truckee’s TransCAD traffic model, which provides forecasts
of traffic conditions throughout the Town as well as the Martis Valley
5 2010-2011 school year traffic count data is in Appendix A of the Traffic Impact
Analysis, attached as Appendix I of this Draft EIR.
FIGURE 4.14-2
2011 SUMMER PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITHOUT PROJECT
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., 2012.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-19
TABLE 4.14-3 2011 TRAFFIC VOLUMES DURING AM AND SCHOOL PM WITHOUT PROJECT
Intersection
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
Total Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right
AM
Glenshire Drive /
Donner Pass Road 320 -- 174 -- -- -- -- 190 94 57 225 -- 1,060
Glenshire Drive /
Dorchester Drive (West) -- -- -- 47 -- 193 115 59 -- -- 148 57 619
Glenshire Drive /
Somerset Drive 32 -- 12 -- -- -- -- 28 13 6 47 -- 138
Glenshire Drive /
Martis Peak Road 5 1 7 13 0 11 5 87 11 6 38 6 190
School PM
Glenshire Drive /
Dorchester Drive (west) -- -- -- 48 -- 127 156 133 -- -- 90 27 581
Glenshire Drive /
Somerset Drive 15 -- 4 -- -- -- -- 47 28 5 43 -- 142
Glenshire Drive /
Martis Peak Road 4 0 6 6 1 8 9 61 8 5 81 17 206
Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., August 2012. Canyon Springs Traffic Impact Analysis, Table 1.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-20
portion of Placer County. As some of the development projects in the Martis
Valley area have recently been approved for development at levels less than
those originally allowed under the Martis Valley Community Plan, the land
uses in the TransCAD traffic model were adjusted downward to reflect the
approved Martis Valley projects. In the Truckee TransCAD traffic model,
buildout of the Town’s General Plan is conservatively assumed to occur by
2025. No further growth in traffic is assumed between 2025 and 2031.
The Teichert’s Boca Quarry Expansion Project, which is located north of
Interstate 80 and accessed via Stampede Meadows Road and the Hirschdale
interchange ramps is within the vicinity of the project site and assumed to be
complete under cumulative conditions. While the quarry project is not in-
cluded in the Truckee TransCAD model, the generated traffic volumes are
provided in the Teichert Boca Quarry Expansion Traffic Impact Analysis pre-
pared by LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. on September 7, 2011.6 These
volumes are conservatively high, as they reflect maximum potential produc-
tion levels at the quarry.7
The following future roadway assumptions are made for the purposes of the
cumulative roadway analysis:
¤ The “Donner Pass Road Extension” will be completed with construction
of the Truckee Railyard Master Plan Project. This new roadway will ex-
tend east from the eastern portion of Downtown Truckee through the
Railyard development and form a new T-intersection with Glenshire
Drive to the east of the intersection with Donner Pass Road. The new
Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road Extension intersection would in-
clude exclusive turn lanes on each approach.
6 Teichert Boca Quarry Expansion volumes are provided in Appendix E of the
Traffic Impact Analysis, attached as Appendix I of this Draft EIR.
7 The Raley property to the east of the project site and the Railyard Master
Plan in downtown Truckee are included in the TransCAD model.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
C ANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-21
¤ The Pioneer Trail and Bridge Street Extensions, which would provide a
connection between Downtown Truckee, Tahoe Donner, and Pioneer
Trail, are assumed to be complete.
¤ Two bridges on Hirschdale Road (crossing the Truckee River and cross-
ing the Union Pacific Railroad Tracks) are proposed to be removed by
Nevada County. A potential new route from the north side of the river
over to Stampede Meadows Road could provide access to the parcels that
are served by the bridges. The change in traffic patterns associated with
the bridge removal is expected to be minimal, given that there are only a
few parcels served by that route.
The 2031 summer weekday PM peak hour intersection turning movement
volumes without the project are shown in Figure 4.14-3, and the 2031 AM
and school PM traffic volumes without the project are shown in Table 4.14-4.
Refer to the Traffic Impact Analysis (see Appendix I of this Draft EIR) for
the assumptions used in producing the 2031 traffic volumes estimates without
the project.
f. Level of Service
Traffic operations at the study intersections are assessed in terms of level of
service and delay consistent to those standards set forth by the Caltrans, the
Town and Nevada County.8 Level of service is a concept that was developed
by transportation engineers to quantify the level of operation of intersections
and roadways.9 Level of service measures are classified in grades “A” through
“F,” indicating the range of operation. Level of service (LOS) “A” signifies
the best level of operation, while "F" represents the worst.
In general, Caltrans tries to maintain LOS D or better, although exceptions
are made in specific cases. The Nevada County General Plan requires that ru-
ral intersections and roadways maintain LOS C, except where the existing
8 A detailed description of LOS criteria is in the Traffic Impact Analysis Appen-
dix C, attached as Appendix I of this Draft EIR.
9 Transportation Research Board, 2000. Highway Capacity Manual.
CALIFORNIA
0
0
5
4
1
78
6
3
2
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 GLENSHIREDR./
DONNERPASSRD.1
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.
JAC
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1 GLENSHIREDR./2
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 GLENSHIREDR./
DORCHESTERDR.3
DONNERPASSRD.EXTENSION
203
510
327
49
351 176
47
42120
264
318
153
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 GLENSHIREDR./
R.DELADHCSRIH615 U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 HIRSCHDALERD./
I-80WESTBOUNDRAMPS8U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 HIRSCHDALERD./
I-80EASTBOUNDRAMPS7GLENSHIREDR./
SOMERSETDR.
14
JACKSVALLEYRD.
404/449
GLENSHIREDR./MARTIS
PEAKRD./WHITEHORSERD.
113
36
8
51
147 122
0
03 8
98 112
35
12
144
120
137
12027
106144
53
104
51 162 30
84 24 117
29
132
6
21
125
9
654
32 35 133
91
341
HIGHWAYS
STREETS
RAILROAD
LAKE
STUDYINTERSECTIONS
TRAFFICMOVEMENT
TRAFFICVOLUME
LEGEND
1
INMILES
SCALE0 .5
8
89
GLENS
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
TRUCKEE
80
80
267
SITEEDINBURGH
2031 PM TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITHOUT PROJECT
FIGURE 4.14-3
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., 2012.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-23
TABLE 4.14-4 2031 TRAFFIC VOLUMES DURING AM AND SCHOOL PM WITHOUT PROJECT
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
Total Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right
AM
Glenshire Drive / Donner Pass Road 151 -- 463 -- -- -- -- 181 47 128 185 -- 1,155
Glenshire Drive / Dorchester Drive (west) -- -- -- 71 -- 239 156 83 -- -- 222 77 848
Glenshire Drive / Somerset Drive 48 -- 16 -- -- -- -- 39 18 9 71 -- 201
Glenshire Drive / Martis Peak Road 8 0 7 13 0 18 7 89 17 6 38 6 209
School PM
Glenshire Drive / Dorchester Drive (west) -- -- -- 72 -- 157 211 186 -- -- 135 36 797
Glenshire Drive / Somerset Drive 23 -- 5 -- -- -- -- 66 39 8 65 -- 206
Glenshire Drive / Martis Peak Road 6 0 6 6 0 13 12 62 12 5 81 17 220
Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., August 2012. Canyon Springs Traffic Impact Analysis, Table 11.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-24
level of service is less than LOS C. In those situations, the level of service
shall not be allowed to drop below the existing level of service. In other
words, level of service on an intersection or roadway already below LOS C
should not be allowed to degrade below its existing condition. Level of ser-
vice shall be based on the typical highest peak hour of weekday traffic.
Under the Town’s General Plan Policy P2.1 LOS D or better on road seg-
ments and for total intersection movements in portions of the Town outside
of the Downtown Study Area must be established and maintained. LOS E or
better on arterial and collector road segments and for total intersection
movements within the Downtown Specific Plan Area are to be established
and maintained. Throughout the Town, individual turning movements at
unsignalized intersections shall not be allowed to reach LOS F and to exceed a
cumulative vehicle delay of four vehicle hours. Both of these conditions shall
be met for traffic operations to be considered unacceptable.
The intersections of Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road and Glenshire
Drive/Donner Pass Road Extension (future intersection) are located within
the Downtown Specific Plan Area, and therefore, the LOS E standard would
apply. The remaining study intersections are outside the downtown Truckee
area; therefore the LOS D standard would apply.
For signalized intersections, level of service is primarily measured in terms of
average delay per vehicle entering the intersection. Level of service at un-
signalized intersections is quantified in terms of delay per vehicle for each
movement. Unsignalized intersection level of service is based upon the theo-
ry of gap acceptance for side-street stop sign-controlled approaches, while
signalized intersection level of service is based upon the assessment of volume-
to-capacity ratios and control delay.10 Existing 2011 intersection level of ser-
vice is shown in Table 4.14-9 and projected 2031 intersection level of service is
shown in Table 4.14-13.
10 Computer output of detailed LOS calculations for all intersections is provid-
ed in Appendix D of the Traffic Impact Analysis, provided in Appendix I of this Draft
EIR.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-25
g. Roadway Safety Analysis
A roadway safety analysis was conducted in the study area, including a review
of historical accident data and existing driver sight distance.
i. Historical Accident Data
Historical accident data was analyzed at the following locations:
¤ Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road Intersection
¤ Glenshire Drive/Dorchester Drive
¤ Glenshire Drive/Martis Peak Road/Whitehorse Road Intersection
¤ Glenshire Drive between West Residential Entrance (Old Highway 40)
and Martis Peak Road
¤ Glenshire Drive between Martis Peak Road and Hirschdale Road
¤ Hirschdale Road between Glenshire Drive and Interstate 80
¤ The roadway segment along Somerset Drive/Courtenay Lane/Regency
Circle/Edinburgh Drive
The accident analysis is based on traffic collision data obtained from the
Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS), which is managed by
the California Highway Patrol (CHP) and contains a comprehensive list of all
reported collisions in the State of California. Local jurisdictions do not main-
tain any accident records exclusive from SWITRS. Accident records were
obtained for the intersections and roadway segments listed above for the five-
year period from 2006 through 2010. The detailed results of the analysis are
included in the Traffic Impact Analysis and summarized in Table 4.14-5.
ii. Driver Sight Distance
A detailed evaluation of the driver sight distance at the Glenshire
Drive/Whitehorse Road/Martis Peak Road intersection was performed.
Traffic engineers consider driver sight distance by two parameters:
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-26
TABLE 4.14-5 HISTORICAL TRAFFIC DATA (2006- 2010)
Road Segment
Total
Accidents
Total In
Snow/Ice
Conditions Fatalities
Annualized
Accident
Rates
(MVM)
Intersections
Glenshire Drive/
Donner Pass Road 12 1 0 .52
Glenshire Drive/
Dorchester Drive 4 0 0 .38
Glenshire Drive/Martis
Peak Road/Whitehorse
Road
0 0 0 0
Roadways
Glenshire Drive between
West Residential Entrance
(Old Hwy 40) and Martis
Peak Road
16 6 0 1.11
Glenshire Drive between
Martis Peak Road and
Hirschdale Road
9 3 0 1.98
Hirschdale Road between
I-80 and Glenshire Drive 6 2 0 2.61
Segment on Somerset
Drive/Courtenay
Lane/Regency Circle/
Edinburgh Drive
2 0 0 1.54
Note: MVM = Million Vehicle-Miles for roadways and Million Vehicle-Movements for intersec-
tions.
Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., August 2012. Canyon Springs Traffic Impact
Analysis.
1. Stopping sight distance requirements are meant to ensure that a driver on
the approaching uncontrolled roadway has adequate time to perceive and
react to the presence of an obstruction in the roadway, and come to a
stop in a safe manner.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-27
2. Corner sight distance requirements are meant to ensure that adequate
time is provided for the waiting vehicle at an unsignalized intersection to
either cross all lanes of through traffic, cross the near lanes and turn left,
or turn right without requiring through traffic to radically alter their
speed. Corner sight distance requirements are based upon major street
roadway design speeds and are identified in Standard Drawing Number
28 in the Town of Truckee Public Improvement and Engineering Stand-
ards. The corner sight distance requirements are meant to provide
7½ seconds for the driver on the crossroad to complete the necessary
maneuver, while the approaching vehicle travels at the assumed design
speed of the major roadway.
A speed study was conducted on Wednesday, July 27, 2011 from 3:20 p.m. to
5:20 p.m. at a point on Glenshire Drive immediately east of Martis Peak
Road.11 There is currently a sign in both directions of this segment advising a
travel speed of 25 miles per hour. A total of 203 vehicles were observed on
Glenshire Drive during the study period. According to the results of the
study, the 85th-percentile speed is estimated to be 30 miles per hour in each
direction. According to Town standards, the applicable corner sight distance
(measured at a 10-foot setback from the edge of the travel lane) at 30 miles per
hour is 330 feet.
A driver sight distance survey was performed at the Glenshire
Drive/Whitehorse Road/Martis Peak Road intersection. The results of this
survey show that the corner sight distance from Martis Peak Road looking to
the west along Glenshire Drive exceeds 330 feet, and is therefore adequate.
The corner sight distance from Martis Peak Road looking to the east along
Glenshire Drive is roughly 425 feet, which exceeds the requirement. There-
fore, no driver sight distance deficiencies are identified on the Martis Peak
Road approach. However, the corner sight distance looking to the west and
east from Whitehorse Road is not adequate. Whitehorse Road looking to the
west along Glenshire Drive is roughly 195 feet, which does not meet the
11 The speed study is provided in Appendix B of the Traffic Impact Analysis,
which is provided in Appendix I of this Draft EIR.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-28
Town’s 330-foot requirement. The corner sight distance from Whitehorse
Road looking to the east along Glenshire Drive is roughly 170 feet, which
does not meet the Town’s 330-foot corner sight distance requirement.
In summary, drivers exiting Martis Peak Drive onto Glenshire Drive have
adequate sight distance to judge an acceptable gap in both directions. Howev-
er, drivers exiting Whitehorse Road onto Glenshire Drive do not have ade-
quate corner sight distance to judge acceptable gaps looking either to the east
or west. In both directions, however, oncoming drivers along Glenshire
Drive have adequate stopping sight distance to react to the presence of a vehi-
cle turning onto the roadway.
C. Standards of Significance
The proposed project would have a significant impact with regard to trans-
portation and traffic if it would:
¤ Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing
measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system,
taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit
and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation sys-
tem, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and
freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit.
¤ Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including,
but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures,
or other standards established by the county congestion management
agency for designated roads or highways.
¤ Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in
traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks.
¤ Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment).
¤ Result in inadequate emergency access.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-29
¤ Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public trans-
it, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance
or safety of such facilities.
a. Project Trip Generation, Distribution, and Assignment
The following establishes the project’s estimated trip generation, distribution,
and assignment onto the study roadways and intersections.
i. Project Trip Generation
¤ Project trip generation evaluates the number of vehicle-trips that would
either have an origin or destination within the area. The trip generation
rates of the proposed project are based on a number of assumptions,
which are described in detail in the Traffic Impact Analysis (See Appen-
dix I of this Draft EIR).
The estimated weekday trip generation analysis is summarized in Table
4.14-6. As indicated, at buildout the proposed project would generate up to
approximately 2,578 one-way daily vehicle trips, of which 194 (46 inbound
and 148 outbound) would occur during the AM peak hour and 257 (164 in-
bound and 93 outbound) would occur during the PM peak hour.
ii. 2011 and 2031 Project Trip Distribution
The distribution of traffic throughout the project area and surrounding net-
work is estimated based on the following conditions and assumptions:
¤ Existing traffic patterns in the Glenshire area;
¤ Expected trip purposes of future residents and visitors to the project;
¤ Location of the site relative to major employment, commercial, and rec-
reational activity centers; and
¤ Distribution generated by the Town’s traffic model for the project site.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
T RANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-30
TABLE 4.14-6 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
Description
ITE
Land Use
ITE
Code Quantity Unit
Trip Generation Ratesa Project Generated Vehicle Trips at Site Access
Daily
AM
Peak Hour
PM
Peak Hour Daily
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Market Rate
Houses
Single-Family
Detached Housing 210 177 DU Equationb Equationc Equationd 1,758 34 100 134 111 65 176
Secondary Units Apartment 220 89 DU Equatione Equationf Equationg 635 9 37 46 41 22 63
Affordable
Housing Apartment 220 26 DU Equatione Equationf Equationg 185 3 11 14 12 6 18
Total Trip Generation 292 DU 2,578 46 148 194 164 93 257
Note: DU = Dwelling Units
a Trip generation rates and regression equations are based on Trip Generation, 8th Edition (ITE, 2008), unless Noted otherwise.
b The number of daily trips, T, for the single-family detached housing land use is determined by the equation Ln(T)=0.92*Ln(#DU)+2.71.
c The number of AM peak hour trips, T, for the single-family detached housing land use is determined by the equation T=0.70(#DU)+9.74; 25 percent inbound trips, 75 percent outbound trips.
d The number of PM peak hour trips, T, for the single-family detached housing land use is determined by the equation Ln(T)=0.90*Ln(#DU)+0.51; 63 percent inbound trips, 37 percent outbound
trips.
e The number of daily trips, T, for the apartment land use is determined by the equation T=6.06(#DU)+123.56.
f The number of AM peak hour trips, T, for the apartment land use is determined by the equation T=0.49(#DU)+3.73; 20 percent inbound trips, 80 percent outbound trips.
g The number of PM peak hour trips, T, for the apartment land use is determined by the equation T=0.55(#DU)+17.65; 65 percent inbound trips, 35 percent outbound trips.
Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., August 2012. Canyon Springs Traffic Impact Analysis, Table 3.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-31
Trip distribution projections show that more than one quarter of trips gener-
ated by the proposed project in 2011 are expected to travel to/from the
Gateway area (near the State Route 89 South/Donner Pass Road intersection).
In addition, existing traffic volumes indicate about 25 percent of Glenshire
traffic travels to/from Interstate 80 to the east of Hirschdale Road.
Under future 2031 conditions, the trip distribution to these key locations is
expected to be lower, considering the new commercial development assumed
to occur in other areas of Truckee (e.g. Railyard Development).
iii. 2011 and 2031 Project Trip Assignment
The proposed project assumes full access to the site via Martis Peak Road as
the Edinburgh Drive access point would be gated and accessible for emergen-
cy use only. Based on a series of assumptions described in the Traffic Impact
Analysis (see Appendix I of this Draft EIR) trip assignment projections indi-
cate that the majority of project-generated traffic would use Hirschdale Road/
Interstate 80 to access the areas listed above, with the exception of Downtown
Truckee (for which Glenshire Road would serve all drivers). A minority of
drivers with a particular aversion to out-of-direction or freeway travel (such
as the elderly) is expected to continue to use Glenshire Drive, particularly for
trips where the Hirschdale/Interstate 80 travel route does not provide a large
travel time savings.12
The 2011 project-generated PM peak-hour traffic volumes through the study
intersections are illustrated in Figure 4.14-4 and the future 2031 project-
generated traffic volumes are shown in Figure 4.14-5. The 2011 and 2031 pro-
ject-generated intersection turning-movement volumes during the AM peak
hour and the PM peak hour of school-related traffic activity are shown in
Table 4.14-7.
12 The detailed results of the travel time analysis is presented in Table 6 of the
Traffic Impact Analysis, which is provided in Appendix I of this Draft EIR.
CALIFORNIA
0
0
5
4
1
78
6
3
2
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 GLENSHIREDR./
HIRSCHDALED.R615 U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 HIRSCHDALERD./
I-80WESTBOUNDRAMPS8U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 HIRSCHDALERD./
I-80EASTBOUNDRAMPS7GLENSHIREDR./
SOMERSETDR.
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 GLENSHIREDR./
DONNERPASSRD.1
14
JACKSVALLEYRD.
404/449
GLENSHIREDR./MARTIS
PEAKRD./WHITEHORSERD.
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.
JAC
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1 GLENSHIREDR./2
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 GLENSHIREDR./
DORCHESTERDR.3
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
DONNERPASSRD.EXTENSION
0
10
6
23
0 39
32
0
0
0
55 0
0
036 57
00 0
0
0
0
103
57
430
3359
1
32
3
60
0
49
29
0 23 2
0 0 41
0
0
61
0
0
103
HIGHWAYS
STREETS
RAILROAD
LAKE
STUDYINTERSECTIONS
TRAFFICMOVEMENT
TRAFFICVOLUME
LEGEND
1
INMILES
SCALE
0 .5
8
89
GLENS
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
TRUCKEE
80
80
267
SITEEDINBURG
H
FIGURE 4.14-4
2011 PROJECT GENERATED PM TRAFFIC VOLUMES
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., 2012.
CALIFORNIA
0
0
5
4
1
78
6
3
2
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 GLENSHIREDR./
R.DELADHCSRIH615 U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 HIRSCHDALERD./
I-80WESTBOUNDRAMPS8U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 HIRSCHDALERD./
I-80EASTBOUNDRAMPS7GLENSHIREDR./
SOMMERSETDR.
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 GLENSHIREDR./
DONNERPASSRD.1
14
JACKSVALLEYRD.
404/449
GLENSHIREDR./MARTIS
PEAKRD./WHITEHORSERD.
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.
JAC
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1 GLENSHIREDR./2
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 GLENSHIREDR./
DORCHESTERDR.3
DONNERPASSRD.EXTENSION
0
12
7
-3
0 12
32
0
0
0
56 0
0
036 57
00 0
5
3
0
98
54
320
3765
1
36
3
60
0
50
29
0 17 2
0 0 30
0
0
61
0
0
103
24
0 0 26
25
4
HIGHWAYS
STREETS
RAILROAD
LAKE
STUDYINTERSECTIONS
TRAFFICMOVEMENT
TRAFFICVOLUME
LEGEND
1
INMILES
SCALE0 .5
8
89
SITE
GLENS
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
TRUCKEE
EDINBURG
H
80
80
267
Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., 2012.
FIGURE 4.14-5
2031 PROJECT GENERATED PM TRAFFIC VOLUMES
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-34
TABLE 4.14-7 PROJECT GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES DURING AM AND SCHOOL PM PEAK HOURS
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
Total Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right
Existing 2011 Project Generated
AM
Glenshire Drive / Donner Pass Road 33 -- 11 -- -- -- -- 0 10 3 0 -- 57
Glenshire Drive / Dorchester Drive (west) -- -- -- 1 -- 0 0 13 -- -- 44 3 61
Glenshire Drive / Somerset Drive 0 -- 0 -- -- -- -- 14 0 0 47 -- 61
Glenshire Drive / Martis Peak Road 57 0 91 0 0 0 0 0 17 29 0 0 194
School PM
Glenshire Drive / Dorchester Drive (west) -- -- -- 3 -- 0 0 47 -- -- 27 2 79
Glenshire Drive / Somerset Drive 0 -- 0 -- -- -- -- 50 0 0 29 -- 79
Glenshire Drive / Martis Peak Road 36 0 57 0 0 0 0 0 62 102 0 0 257
Future 2031 Project Generated
AM
Glenshire Drive / Donner Pass Road 0 -- 13 -- -- -- -- 0 3 4 0 -- 20
Glenshire Drive / Dorchester Drive (west) -- -- -- 1 -- 0 0 13 -- -- 44 3 61
Glenshire Drive / Somerset Drive 0 -- 0 -- -- -- -- 14 0 0 47 -- 61
Glenshire Drive / Martis Peak Road 58 0 90 0 0 0 0 0 18 28 0 0 194
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
TABLE 4.14-7 PROJECT GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES DURING AM AND SCHOOL PM PEAK HOURS (CONTINUED)
4.14-35
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
Total Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right
School PM
Glenshire Drive / Dorchester Drive (west) -- -- -- 3 -- 0 0 48 -- -- 27 2 80
Glenshire Drive / Somerset Drive 0 -- 0 -- -- -- -- 51 0 0 29 -- 80
Glenshire Drive / Martis Peak Road 37 0 56 0 0 0 0 0 64 100 0 0 257
Note: Assumes site access via Martis Peak Road only.
Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., August 2012. Canyon Springs Traffic Impact Analysis, Table 7.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-36
Excluding trips between the project site and Reno/Sparks, Glenshire or
Stampede Meadows Road, 45 percent of project traffic to/from the west
would use Glenshire Drive and the remaining 55 percent would use
Hirschdale Road/ Interstate 80. Given the location of the project access point
in the easternmost portion of Glenshire (2 miles east of the Glenshire General
Store), this distribution proportion is consistent with the observed traffic pat-
terns.
D. Impact Discussion
1. Project Impacts
a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing
measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system,
taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit
and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation sys-
tem, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and
freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit.
Adding the 2011 project-generated traffic volumes to the “2011 without pro-
ject” volumes yields the “2011 with project” intersection volumes shown in
Figure 4.14-6 and Table 4.14-8.
i. 2011 Level of Service Impacts
All study intersections were evaluated to determine existing operational con-
ditions for the 2011 summer PM peak hour. The Glenshire Drive/Donner
Pass Road intersection was also evaluated for the AM peak hour. In addition,
the intersections of Glenshire Drive/Dorchester Drive (West), Glenshire
Drive/Somerset Drive, and Glenshire Drive/Martis Peak Road were evaluat-
ed for the AM and PM peak periods of school-related traffic activity. As indi-
cated on Table 4.14-9, using the traffic volumes identified above, all study
intersections currently operate at acceptable levels during all periods without
the proposed project, with the exception of the Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass
Road intersection. During the PM peak hour, the worst movement on this
intersection (the left-turn movement from Glenshire Drive to Donner Pass
Road) operates at LOS F, with a total of about 16.7 vehicle-hours of delay.
CALIFORNIA
0
0
5
4
1
78
6
3
2
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 GLENSHIREDR./
DONNERPASSRD.1
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.
JAC
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1 GLENSHIREDR./2
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 GLENSHIREDR./
DORCHESTERDR.3
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
DONNERPASSRD.EXTENSION
247
237
129
188
368 394
38
3497
195
276
131
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 GLENSHIREDR./
HIRSCHDALED.R615 U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 HIRSCHDALERD./
I-80WESTBOUNDRAMPS8U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 HIRSCHDALERD./
I-80EASTBOUNDRAMPS7GLENSHIREDR./
SOMERSETDR.
14
JACKSVALLEYRD.
404/449
GLENSHIREDR./MARTIS
PEAKRD./WHITEHORSERD.
107
24
6
34
160 87
0
038 65
95 7
2
2
12
256
202
13727
107130
67
81
41 101 54
33 60 110
21
130
65
21
125
112
HIGHWAYS
STREETS
RAILROAD
LAKE
STUDYINTERSECTIONS
TRAFFICMOVEMENT
TRAFFICVOLUME
LEGEND
1
INMILES
SCALE0 .5
8
89
GLENS
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
TRUCKEE
80
80
267
SITEEDINBURGH
Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., 2012.
FIGURE 4.14-6
2011 PM TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH PROJECT
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-38
TABLE 4.14-8 2011 WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES DURING AM AND SCHOOL PM PEAK HOURS
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
Total Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right
AM
Glenshire Drive / Donner Pass Road 353 -- 185 -- -- -- -- 190 104 60 225 -- 1,117
Glenshire Drive / Dorchester Drive (west) -- -- -- 48 -- 193 115 72 -- -- 192 60 680
Glenshire Drive / Somerset Drive 32 -- 12 -- -- -- 42 13 6 94 199
Glenshire Drive / Martis Peak Road 62 1 98 13 0 11 5 87 28 35 38 6 384
School PM
Glenshire Drive / Dorchester Drive (west) -- -- -- 51 -- 127 156 180 -- -- 117 29 660
Glenshire Drive / Somerset Drive 15 -- 4 -- -- -- -- 97 28 5 72 221
Glenshire Drive / Martis Peak Road 40 0 63 6 1 8 9 61 70 107 81 17 463
Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., August 2012. Canyon Springs Traffic Impact Analysis, Table 8.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-39
TABLE 4.14-9 2011 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE
Intersection Control Type
Without Project With Project
Total Intersection Worst Movement Total Intersection Worst Movement
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Summer PM PEAK HOUR
Glenshire Drive / Donner Pass Road Side Street Stop 43.4 E OVF F 68.3 F OVF F
Glenshire Drive / DPR extension Side Street Stop Future Intersection Future Intersection
Glenshire Drive / Dorchester Drive (west) Side Street Stop 4.5 A 12.3 B 4.4 A 13.8 B
Glenshire Drive / Somerset Drive All-Way Stop 7.9 A 8.0 A 8.4 A 8.6 A
Glenshire Drive / Martis Peak Road Side Street Stop 1.4 A 10.6 B 4.3 A 14.1 B
Hirschdale Road / Glenshire Drive Side Street Stop 5.2 A 10.2 B 5.2 A 11.4 B
Hirschdale Road / I-80 EB Ramps Side Street Stop 4.6 A 10.5 B 5.1 A 11.5 B
Hirschdale Road / I-80 WB Ramps Side Street Stop 5.1 A 10.2 B 6.0 A 10.7 B
AM PEAK HOUR
Glenshire Drive / Donner Pass Road Side Street Stop 15.3 C 42.9 E 21.3 C 59.9 F
Glenshire Drive / Dorchester Drive (west) Side Street Stop 6.6 A 13.2 B 6.5 A 14.4 B
Glenshire Drive / Somerset Drive All-Way Stop 7.3 A 7.4 A 7.5 A 7.7 A
Glenshire Drive / Martis Peak Road Side Street Stop 2.2 A 9.3 A 6.0 A 10.8 B
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
TABLE 4.14-9 2011 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE (CONTINUED)
4.14-40
Intersection Control Type
Without Project With Project
Total Intersection Worst Movement Total Intersection Worst Movement
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
School PM PEAK HOUR
Glenshire Drive / Dorchester Drive (west) Side Street Stop 5.7 A 12.0 B 5.3 A 12.9 B
Glenshire Drive / Somerset Drive All-Way Stop 7.2 A 7.3 A 7.5 A 7.6 A
Glenshire Drive / Martis Peak Road Side Street Stop 1.6 A 9.3 A 4.8 A 11.3 B
Notes: BOLD text indicates exceedance of the Town of Truckee LOS standard for unsignalized approaches, which states that an unsignalized movement at LOS F with greater than four total
vehicle-hours of delay is unacceptable.
OVF = Overflow. Overflow indicates an excessive delay, which cannot be accurately calculated using HCM methodology.
Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., August 2012. Canyon Springs Traffic Impact Analysis, Table 9.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-41
This exceeds the Town’s standard of LOS F and a maximum of 4 vehicle-
hours of delay.
As indicated on Table 4.14-9, implementation of the proposed project would
result in increased delays at all study intersections, and the level of service
would degrade by one level at some intersections as described below. How-
ever, no additional intersections would exceed the Town standard in 2011
with the project.
At the Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection, the total intersection
level of service would degrade from LOS E Existing 2011 No Project condi-
tions [baseline]) to LOS F (Existing 2011 with Project conditions) during the
PM peak hour, while the worst movement would continue to operate at LOS
F with more than four vehicle-hours of delay. The delay would increase from
about 16.7 vehicle hours in 2011 existing, no project conditions, to about 28.3
vehicle hours with project buildout. Implementation of the proposed project
would therefore exacerbate an existing LOS deficiency at this intersection, as
it would result in increased vehicular delays during the PM peak hour. In
addition, implementation of the project would cause the intersection to ex-
ceed the LOS threshold during the AM peak hour, with a total of approxi-
mately 5.9 vehicle-hours of delay on the left-turn movement from Glenshire
Drive. Therefore, level of service impacts at this intersection would be poten-
tially significant.
Intersection LOS mitigation measures have been considered for the Glenshire
Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection, as it is expected the LOS threshold
will continue to be exceeded in the 2011 summer PM peak hour, without the
project, and further exacerbated with the proposed project. The following
provides a summary of each of the intersection LOS mitigation measures con-
sidered.
1) The construction of a roundabout or traffic signal at this location is not
feasible due to the existing steep grades. The transition in and out of ei-
ther improvement would create unsafe traffic conditions, particularly in
inclement weather.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-42
2) Provide a two-way left-turn lane along Donner Pass Road between Glen-
shire Drive and Keiser Avenue. With a two-way left-turn lane, drivers
are expected to make a left turn into the center lane and then move into a
gap in the westbound through traffic and accelerate in the through lane,
rather than accelerating in the median lane. A driver would be prohibit-
ed by law from traveling more than 200 feet in a two-way left-turn lane.
There would be a potential for conflicts between drivers turning left
from both Glenshire Drive and Keiser Avenue. Drivers in both direc-
tions would also need to accurately judge acceptable gaps in oncoming
traffic by looking in their rear view mirrors. As the speed limit along
this portion of Glenshire Drive is 45 miles per hour, this would create an
unacceptable potential for accidents. For this reason, two-way left-turn
lanes are typically not provided along roadways with speeds exceeding 35
miles per hour.
3) Provide a left turn acceleration lane (center lane) along Donner Pass Road
west of Glenshire Drive, which would allow drivers turning left from
Glenshire Drive to make a “two-stage” left-turn movement, first using a
gap in the eastbound traffic to turn into the center lane before using a gap
in the westbound traffic to merge to the right into the westbound
through lane. A conceptual layout for this improvement is illustrated on
Figure 4.14-7. The center lane would not be permitted for drivers turning
left from Keiser Avenue. The pavement markings associated with the left
turn lane would be designed to discourage drivers making left turns from
Keiser Avenue onto Donner Pass Road from pulling into the painted
median area, in order to minimize the potential for traffic accidents. The
presence of the center lane would improve LOS for drivers turning left
from Glenshire Drive.
Table 4.14-10 summarizes the LOS and delay on the worst movement
(the left-turn movement from Glenshire Drive) under 2011 conditions
with the new center lane. Implementation of this improvement would
improve the LOS to an acceptable level under 2011 conditions without
the proposed project, with a total of approximately 2.7 vehicle-hours of
delay on the worst movement. While the addition of the left turn lane
FIGURE 4.14-7
GLENSHIRE DRIVE/DONNER PASS ROAD LEFT TURN ACCELERATION LANE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
600 120 Feet
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-44
TABLE 4.14-10 GLENSHIRE DRIVE/DONNER PASS ROAD INTERSECTION
LOS WITH CENTER TURN LANEa
Scenario
Delay on Worst Movement
HCM 2010 Method –
Adjusted Gap Times
Delay
(sec/veh)
Delay
(veh/hrs) LOS
2011 PM No Project - Existing Conditionsb 363.3 16.7 F
PM Peak Hour (With Center Turn Lane)
2011 PM – No Project
2011 PM – With Single Access Alternative
2011 PM – With Edinburgh Access Alternative
59.1
90.9
106.9
2.7
4.8
5.9
F
F
F
AM Peak Hour (With Center Turn Lane)
2011 AM – No Project
2011 AM – With Single Access Alternative
2011 AM – With Edinburgh Access Alternative
25.1
30.4
34.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
D
D
D
Note: Bold text indicates exceedance of the Town of Truckee LOS standards for unsignalized
approaches, which states that an unsignalized movement at LOS F with greater than four total
vehicle-hours of delay is unacceptable.
a Assumes a two-stage left-turn operation from Glenshire Drive with one-car storage in median.
b The existing condition assumes a one-stage left-turn with adjusted gap acceptance times.
Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., August 27, 2012. Canyon Springs Traffic Impact
Analysis, Table 22.
would improve existing conditions to an acceptable LOS and would signifi-
cantly improve intersection LOS with buildout of the project (4.8 total vehi-
cle-hours of delay under PM peak hour conditions and total intersection LOS
B compared to 16.7 total vehicle-hours of delay under PM peak hour condi-
tions and total intersection LOS F), the LOS at this intersection would none-
theless remain at an unacceptable LOS level as it would exceed the Town
standards by 0.8 total vehicle-hours of delay under PM peak hour conditions.
Temporary off-site impacts associated with the provision of a center lane on
Donner Pass Road during Phase 1 of project construction would be consid-
ered to be less than significant through implementation mitigation measures
and mandatory regulations described in other chapters of this Draft EIR.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-45
Mitigation Measure HYDRO-1a through 1c and HYDRO-2a through 2c de-
scribed in Section 4.9 recommends measures and Best Management Practices
to stabilize soils and minimize erosion during the construction process. Man-
datory regulations described in Section 4.5 of this Draft EIR, impacts to un-
known cultural resources and human remains would be less than significant
as well. Mitigation Measure TRANS-4 would reduce temporary impact to
local roadways through the preparation of a Construction Traffic Manage-
ment Plan to be prepared and approved by the Town’s Public Works De-
partment prior to Phase 1 of project construction.
With the new center turn lane, some level of development could occur before
the LOS threshold is exceeded. It is estimated that construction Phases 1
through 5 or about 65 percent of the Canyon Springs development (including
about 102 single-family lots plus the 8 affordable housing lots) could be con-
structed before the threshold is exceeded. This would generate about 15 left
turns from Glenshire Drive onto Donner Pass Road.
In addition to the potential mitigation measures discussed above, the impacts
of the implementation of the Donner Pass Road Extension to be constructed
east of Bridge Street tying into a new T-intersection on Glenshire Drive
(which is part of the approved Railyard Master Plan Project) were considered.
This roadway extension would substantially reduce the left-turning traffic
volume from Glenshire Drive onto Donner Pass Road, as drivers faced with
long delays for making left-turn movements from Glenshire Drive can be
expected to shift their travel patterns to instead use the Donner Pass Road
Extension. As a result, the Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection is
shown to operate within the LOS thresholds with implementation of the
Donner Pass Road Extension. Note that the LOS at the Glenshire
Drive/Donner Pass Road Extension intersection would continue to be ac-
ceptable with these additional left turn movements.
The Railyard Master Plan Project is a planned project and it is included in the
Town of Truckee Traffic Fee Program, which requires entities initiating new
development within the Town to pay traffic impact fees. The project appli-
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-46
cant would be required to pay the current fee of $5,395 per single-family
dwelling unit and $3,345 per multi-family unit, resulting in a total fee of ap-
proximately $1,085,045.13 However, according to Table CIR-6 in the Town
of Truckee 2025 General Plan Circulation Element, when a Category 3 Pro-
ject (such as Canyon Springs) encounters an existing unacceptable Level of
Service on an arterial or collector road, that development is allowed if either
of the following are true:
¤ Project constructs improvements to impacted roads and intersections as
identified in General Plan Table CIR-5; or
¤ Improvements to impacted roads and intersections are identified in the
CIP, fully funded, and scheduled for completion within three years.
While the construction of the Donner Pass Road Extension is identified in the
CIP, it is not fully funded, nor is it scheduled for completion within three
years. Therefore, the LOS improvements to the Glenshire Drive/Donner
Pass Road intersection as a result of the Donner Pass Road Extension are not
considered at this time. Consequently, based upon this analysis and the phys-
ical constraints at this location, project LOS impacts to the Glenshire
Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection are considered significant.
ii. 2011 Intersection Queuing Impacts
Traffic queues at specific intersections that exceed the storage capacity of turn
lanes or ramps, or that block turn movements at important nearby intersec-
tions or driveways, can cause operational problems beyond those identified in
the level of service analysis. The 95th-percentile traffic queue length was re-
viewed at locations where queuing could potentially cause traffic problems.
The longest traffic queue occurs at the left-turn movement from Glenshire
Drive onto Donner Pass Road during the summer PM peak hour. The 95th-
percentile queue length for this turning movement is calculated to be approx-
imately 18 vehicles, including traffic from the proposed project. Assuming a
13 Traffic and Facility Impact Fees, Effective Date, November 1, 2011,
http://www.townoftruckee.com/index.aspx?page=15, retrieved November 30, 2011.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-47
length of about 25 feet per vehicle, this equates to a total queue length of
about 450 feet, which would not affect any nearby intersections or driveways.
The longest traffic queue length for drivers stopped on Dorchester Drive
(West) waiting to turn onto Glenshire Drive occurs during the AM peak
hour. The 95th-percentile queue length on this approach is approximately
two vehicles (or about 50 feet), with or without the proposed project. As the
nearest driveway on Dorchester Drive is located about 180 feet from the in-
tersection, no operational queuing problems are identified. Therefore, 2011
queuing impacts would be less than significant.
iii. 2011 Turn Lane Warrants
Guidelines for adding turn lanes are provided in the National Cooperative
Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 457 – Evaluating Intersection
Improvements: An Engineering Study Guide,14 as well as in the Guidelines
for Reconstruction of Intersections.15 Left-turn lane volume warrants are
defined by volume thresholds of opposing traffic versus advancing traffic, as
well as the percentage of left-turns on the advancing approach. Right-turn
lane warrants are based on a graphical curve of right-turning volumes versus
total traffic in the travel lane.16
The need for left-turn lanes was evaluated at the following two locations:
¤ Glenshire Drive at the Western End of Dorchester Drive: Based upon
the 2011 AM and PM peak-hour traffic volumes, an eastbound left-turn
lane is warranted along Glenshire Drive at its intersection with Dorches-
ter Drive (West), with or without the project. The calculated 95th-
percentile traffic queue length on the eastbound left-turn movement is
less than one vehicle.
14 Transportation Research Board, 2001. National Cooperative Highway Re-
search Program (NCHRP) Report 457 – Evaluating Intersection Improvements: An Engi-
neering Study Guide.
15 Caltrans, 1985. Guidelines for Reconstruction of Intersections.
16 The warrant charts are included in Appendix H of the Traffic Impact Analy-
sis, which is included in Appendix I of this Draft EIR.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-48
¤ Whitehorse Road/Martis Peak Road Intersection: The traffic volumes
at the Glenshire Drive/Whitehorse Road/Martis Peak Road intersection
do not warrant a left-turn lane along Glenshire Drive under existing con-
ditions, with or without the project. Therefore, a left-turn lane along
Glenshire Drive is not warranted at this location.
The need for right-turn lanes was evaluated at the following two locations:
¤ Glenshire Drive at Dorchester Drive (West): The right-turn lane war-
rant is not met under 2011 conditions, with or without the project.
Therefore, the addition of new right-turn lanes is not warranted.
¤ Whitehorse Road/Martis Peak Road Intersection: The right-turn lane
warrant is not met under 2011 conditions, with or without the project.
Therefore, the addition of new right-turn lanes is not warranted.
Because a left-turn lane is warranted at Glenshire Drive at the western end of
Dorchester Drive, turn lane impacts would be significant under 2011 condi-
tions.
iv. 2011 Roadway Capacity
Roadway capacity is evaluated in order to determine whether a specific road-
way segment can accommodate existing and/or future traffic volumes. Dif-
ferent methodologies can be employed to determine capacity, but generally,
the calculation will incorporate a series of factors including roadway facility
type, evaluation period, and level of service thresholds. The Town of Truck-
ee roadway capacity standards are based upon hourly traffic volumes, and the
Nevada County roadway volume criteria are based upon daily traffic vol-
umes. According to the Nevada County General Plan, a LOS C can be main-
tained on a two-lane major collector with an Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of
8,800 or less and on a two-lane minor collector with an ADT of 7,600 or less.
The maximum allowable traffic volumes to obtain the level of service thresh-
olds applicable to the study roadway segments are shown in Table 4.14-11.
Table 4.14-11 also presents a comparison of 2011 traffic volumes with the
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-49
TABLE 4.14-11 2011 ROADWAY LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
Roadway Segment Jurisdiction Classification
LOS
Threshold
Maximum
Allowable Volume
to Obtain LOS
Standard PM
Peak Hour
Two-Way
Volume
PM
Peak Hour
Peak
Direction
Volume ADTa,b
LOS
Threshold
Exceeded?
Peak Hour
Per Lane ADT
Without Project
Glenshire Drive, between Donner
Pass Road and Highland Avenue Town of Truckee Minor Arterial D 1,420 -- 870 582 9,220 No
Glenshire Drive, between Highland
Avenue and Dorchester Drive (West) Town of Truckee Minor Arterial D 1,420 -- 621 422 6,460 No
Glenshire Drive, between Dorchester
Drive (West) and Somerset Drive Town of Truckee Minor Arterial D 1,420 -- 392 255 4,080 No
Glenshire Drive, between Somerset
Drive and Martis Peak Road Town of Truckee Minor Arterial D 1,420 -- 287 155 2,990 No
Glenshire Drive, between Martis Peak
Road and Hirschdale Road Nevada County Minor Collector C -- 7,600 302 155 3,010 No3
Hirschdale Road, between Glenshire
Drive and I-80 Westbound Ramps Nevada County Minor Collector C -- 7,600 317 165 3,160 No
Martis Peak Road, between Glenshire
Drive and Project Access Nevada County Private Road N/Ad N/Ad N/Ad 23 13 220 No
Somerset Drive between Glenshire
Drive and Courtenay Lane Town of Truckee Local Roadway D 500 -- 151 111 1,430 No
Courtenay Lane between Somerset
Drive and Regency Circlee Town of Truckee Local Roadway D 500 -- 56 41 530 No
Regency Circlee Town of Truckee Local Roadway D 500 -- 54 40 510 No
Edinburgh Drivee Town of Truckee Local Roadway D 500 -- 14 10 130 No
With Proposed Project
Glenshire Drive, between Donner
Pass Road and Highland Avenue Town of Truckee Minor Arterial D 1,420 -- 948 631 10,050 No
Glenshire Drive, between Highland
Avenue and Dorchester Drive (West) Town of Truckee Minor Arterial D 1,420 -- 699 471 7,280 No
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
TABLE 4.14-9 2011 ROADWAY LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)
4.14-50
Roadway Segment Jurisdiction Classification
LOS
Threshold
Maximum
Allowable Volume
to Obtain LOS
Standard PM
Peak Hour
Two-Way
Volume
PM
Peak Hour
Peak
Direction
Volume ADTa,b
LOS
Threshold
Exceeded?
Peak Hour
Per Lane ADT
Glenshire Drive, between Dorchester
Drive (West) and Somerset Drive Town of Truckee Minor Arterial D 1,420 -- 479 310 4,990 No
Glenshire Drive, between Somerset Drive
and Martis Peak Road Town of Truckee Minor Arterial D 1,420 -- 384 216 4,000 No
Glenshire Drive, between Martis Peak
Road and Hirschdale Road Nevada County Minor Collector C -- 7,600 462 258 4,610 Noc
Hirschdale Road, between Glenshire drive
and I-80 Westbound Ramps Nevada County Minor Collector C -- 7,600 477 268 4,760 No
Martis Peak Road, between Glenshire
Drive and Project Access Town of Truckeef Collectorf D 890 -- 280 177 2,650 No
Somerset Drive between Glenshire Drive
and Courtenay Lane Town of Truckee Local Roadway D 500 -- 151 111 1,430 No
Courtenay Lane between Somerset Drive
and Regency Circlee Town of Truckee Local Roadway D 500 -- 56 41 530 No
Regency Circlee Town of Truckee Local Roadway D 500 -- 54 40 510 No
Edinburgh Drivee Town of Truckee Local Roadway D 500 -- 14 10 130 No
Notes: Assumes site access via Martis Peak Road only.
ADT = Average Daily Traffic volume
a ADT is estimated using an ADT-to-peak-hour volume factor calculated from traffic counts, except for local roadways.
b Local roadway ADT is estimated using the ratio of daily to PM peak hour ITE trip rates for single- family dwelling units.
c Although there is no level of service deficiency, this roadway segment has an existing geometric deficiency.
d Nevada County does not have a volume criterion for private roads.
e Traffic volumes are estimated for these roadway segments by applying trip generation rates to the number of dwelling units served.
f Although Martis Peak Road is located outside Town limits, this roadway segment is required to meet Town standards with the project, as the Town is processing the Project Application.
Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., August 2012. Canyon Springs Traffic Impact Analysis, Table 10.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-51
pertinent level of service standard. The ADT volume along each study road-
way segment is estimated by applying an ADT-to-peak hour volume factor
calculated from the traffic counts, except for several local roadway segments.
The volume factors range from approximately 9.5 to 10.6. The traffic vol-
umes along the local roadway segments of Edinburgh Drive, Regency Circle,
and Courtenay Lane were estimated by applying standard ITE trip generation
rates to the number of dwelling units served. As shown in Table 4.14-11, all
study roadway segments currently operate within the allowable traffic vol-
ume threshold and all study roadway segments are within the allowable
traffic volume threshold with implementation of the proposed project.
Therefore, roadway capacity impacts under existing conditions would be less
than significant.
v. 2011 Local Residential Roadway Impacts
According to the 2025 General Plan Circulation Element Policy P2.2, the
proposed project would meet the adopted standard for impact on a local resi-
dential roadway if the project does not increase traffic on a local road by
more than 1,000 ADT or if the project increases traffic on a local road by
more than 1,000 ADT but the increase in ADT is less than 50 percent, and
the provisions of Circulation Element Policy P2.4, which calls for improving
the connectivity throughout the Town’s roadway network, through roadway
improvements, while minimizing environmental, circulation, and residential
neighborhood impacts, can be met.
The increase in traffic on the local roadways as a result of the proposed pro-
ject would not impact the traffic volumes on local roadway segments from
Somerset Drive to Edinburgh Drive given that the Edinburgh access point
would be gated for emergency access only. Therefore, the proposed project
meets the adopted standard for impacts to local residential roadways within
the Town limit.
Martis Peak Road is a privately-maintained road outside the Town of Truckee
Limits. However, the relatively short segment of Martis Peak Road that pro-
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-52
vides access to the project site is subject to the Town’s thresholds. This
roadway segment has a total pavement width ranging from 20 to 23 feet. In
2011 with the project, Martis Peak Road would have an ADT volume exceed-
ing 2,000 vehicles, and it would function as a Collector roadway. According
to Town standards, a Collector roadway should provide 12-foot travel lanes
with 2-foot shoulders. As the existing pavement width along Martis Peak
Road does not accommodate 12-foot travel lanes, the segment of Martis Peak
Road between Glenshire Drive and the proposed main project access point
would not meet Town standards with the project.
Therefore, the proposed project would not meet the adopted standard for
impacts to local residential roadways and impacts local roadways under 2011
conditions and impacts would be significant.
vi. Construction Impacts
As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Draft EIR, the project
is proposed to be constructed in eight phases. The construction schedule for
the new residences is dependent upon market demand, and full buildout of
the project is anticipated to take at least 20 years. Phase 1 is expected to gen-
erate the greatest amount of construction traffic, as it is the phase with the
largest number of lots (37) and the longest length of roadway (approximately
1.36 miles) to be constructed. Table 4.14-12 provides an analysis of the con-
struction related traffic that is expected to be generated over the course of a
peak day during Phase I activities. The analysis is based upon a number of
assumptions included in the project Traffic Impact Analysis, which is includ-
ed as Appendix I of this Draft EIR.
As shown in Table 4.14-12, construction Phase 1 is expected to generate ap-
proximately 388 one-way passenger-car-equivalent trips over the course of a
busy construction day, with about 96 exiting trips occurring during the PM
peak hour of commuter traffic. In comparison with the proposed develop-
ment traffic, the number of inbound trips during the PM peak hour would be
less during construction, but a similar amount of exiting traffic would occur
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-53
TABLE 4.14-12 CONSTRUCTION TRIP GENERATION
Description
Phase 1 Construction
Roadways Lots
Total Equipment Employees Equipment
Home
Construction
Employees
Other
Employees
Employees per Day -- 12 -- 125 16 --
Employees Vehicle Occupancy -- 1.2 -- 1.2 1.2 --
Vehicles per Day 6 10 8 104 13 141
One-Way Trips Per Day – Per Vehicle 2 2.5 2 2.5 2.5 --
One-Way Trips Per Day – Total 12 25 16 260 33 346
Passenger Car Equivalents per Vehicle 2.5 1 2.5 1 1 --
Passenger Car Equivalent Trips per Day 30 25 40 260 33 388
Percentage of Trips Exiting in PM Peak Hour 10% 28% 10% 28% 28% --
Number of PM Peak-Hour Exiting Trips 3 7 4 73 9 96
Note: The 28 percent of employee vehicle trips exiting during the PM peak hour is calculated based on the total number of one-way vehicle-trips per day and the assumption that 70 percent of
employees depart the site during the PM peak hour.
Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., August 2012. Canyon Springs Traffic Impact Analysis, Table 24.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-54
(the project would generate about 93 exiting trips, compared to about 96 dur-
ing construction). Consequently, the traffic impacts during construction
Phase 1 are similar to that under full buildout of the proposed project.
All study intersections and roadway segments are expected to operate at an
acceptable level of service during the construction phases, except the Glen-
shire Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection, which as previously discussed is
at unacceptable levels under existing conditions. If any project construction
traffic accesses the site to/from the west via the Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass
Road intersection before implementation of the Donner Pass Road Exten-
sion, this would exacerbate an existing level of service deficiency and con-
struction impacts during Phase 1 would be significant.
vii. Pedestrian and Bicycle Paths, and Mass Transit
As discussed further below the project would provide 4.5 miles of publicly
accessible trails and no mass transit services are currently located in the pro-
ject area.
b. Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including,
but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures,
or other standards established by the county congestion management
agency for designated roads or highways.
There is no applicable congestion management program. Therefore, no im-
pacts would occur.
c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in
traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks.
The airport closest to the project site is the Truckee Tahoe Airport, located
approximately four miles to the west-southwest of the project site. The pro-
ject would not result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safe-
ty risks; therefore, no impact would occur.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-55
d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment).
i. Intersection Corner Sight Distance
The addition of project traffic at the Martis Peak Road/Glenshire Drive/
Whitehorse Road intersection could result in hazardous driving conditions
due to the current limited sight distance conditions.
a) Martis Peak Road Looking West and East Along Glenshire Drive
The driver sight distance survey prepared for the project found that the cor-
ner sight distance from Martis Peak Road looking to the west along Glenshire
Drive was adequate as it exceeds 330 feet applicable corner sight distance
(measured at a 10-foot setback from the edge of the travel lane) at 30 miles per
hour and the corner sight distance from Martis Peak Road looking to the east
along Glenshire Drive, roughly 425 feet, is also adequate. Therefore, no driv-
er sight distance deficiencies are identified on the Martis Peak Road approach
and impacts would be less than significant at this location.
b) Whitehorse Road Looking West Along Glenshire Drive
Whitehorse Road looking to the west along Glenshire Drive is roughly 195
feet, which does not meet the Town’s 330-foot requirement (see Figure
4.14-8). The corner sight distance at this location is limited by the existing
embankment and vegetation on the northwest corner of the intersection, as
well as by the horizontal and vertical curvature along Glenshire Drive. The
corner sight distance improves as the driver on Whitehorse Road approaches
the edge of the travel lane on Glenshire Drive. Measured 10 feet back from
the edge of the traveled way, the corner sight distance is approximately
195 feet, and when measured from a 5-foot setback the corner sight distance
increases to approximately 255 feet; however, these values do not achieve the
Town’s 330-foot requirement and impacts to drivers on Whitehorse Road
would be potentially significant.
The corner sight distance at this location could be improved by modifying
the existing embankment on the northwest corner of the intersection. How
100feet
FIGURE–
ExistingDriverSightDistanceatWhitehorseApproachtoGlenshireDrive
SightDistanceforDriverssoutheast-
boundonWhitehorseDrivelooking
northeastonGlenshireDrive=170feet.
Constrainedbyutilityboxandvegetation.
SightDistanceforDriverssoutheast-
boundonWhitehorseDrivelooking
southwestonGlenshireDrive=195
feet.Constrainedbyhorizontaland
verticalcurvatureonGlenshireDrive.
FIGURE 4.14-8
WHITEHORSE ROAD/GLENSHIRE DRIVE INTERSECTION SIGHT DISTANCE
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., 2012.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-57
ever, such an improvement would likely require the acquisition of right-of-
way from the single-family parcel located on this corner. Town standards
indicate that “where restrictive conditions do not allow compliance with the
specified sight distance requirements, the Town Engineer may approve a re-
duction of the corner sight distance to the minimum stopping sight distance
as outlined in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual.” According to Caltrans
standards, at a 30-mile-per-hour design speed, the minimum stopping sight
distance is 200 feet. Measured stopping sight distance for drivers approaching
along Glenshire Drive from the west is 210 feet measured to an object six
inches in height, and at least 255 feet to a vehicle turning into the westbound
through lane. Therefore, adequate stopping sight distance is provided for
eastbound drivers along Glenshire Drive to see and react to a driver pulling
out from Whitehorse Road. Furthermore, no accidents were reported at this
intersection during the 5-year period from 2006 to 2010. Therefore, hazard-
ous driving impacts at this location would be less than significant and no miti-
gation measures are warranted.
c) Whitehorse Road Looking East Along Glenshire Drive
The corner sight distance from Whitehorse Road looking to the east along
Glenshire Drive is roughly 170 feet, which does not meet the Town’s 330-
foot corner sight distance requirement. To the east of the intersection Glen-
shire Drive curves to the north and then back to the south. When looking
east from Whitehorse Road, a driver can see a portion of the road, but as it
turns to the north it disappears from sight and reappears into the driver’s
sight as it curves back to the south. The corner sight distance at this location
is limited by an existing utility box in the northeast quadrant of the intersec-
tion, as well as by existing vegetation. If the existing utility box and vegeta-
tion were removed, then the corner sight distance to the east would be im-
proved to roughly 580 feet, thereby meeting minimum corner sight distance
requirements. However, the stopping sight distance along Glenshire Drive
east of Whitehorse Drive (measured along the travel lane) is over 500 feet, as
the existing utility box does not block the driver sight line along the traveled
way. Therefore, adequate stopping sight distance is provided. If a driver
makes a right turn from Whitehorse Road without an adequate gap, a vehicle
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-58
traveling on Glenshire Drive westbound would have adequate stopping sight
distance to react and come to a stop. Furthermore, no accidents were report-
ed at this intersection during the 5-year period from 2006 to 2010. Therefore,
hazardous driving impacts at this location would be less than significant and
no mitigation measures are warranted.
ii. Roadway Segment Hazards
The roadway segment of Glenshire Drive east of Martis Peak Road has a steep
grade of about nine percent. The existing pavement width accommodates 11-
foot travel lanes with no shoulder in some locations. Both Nevada County
and Town of Truckee roadway design standards call for 12-foot lanes with
4-foot shoulders, and maximum grade of eight percent. Therefore, as this
segment of Glenshire Drive does not meet the design standards, it is consid-
ered to have an existing geometric deficiency. While Nevada County recently
added roughly 200 feet of guardrail along the south side of this roadway seg-
ment, no additional improvements are planned for this roadway segment.
The Glenshire Drive east of Martis Peak Road roadway segment on has an
average accident rate (from 2006 to 2010) about two times the State and
County average rates for similar facilities. The injury and fatal accident rate is
also higher than the State and County average rates for similar facilities.
However, the severity of the accidents is relatively minor overall, given that
no fatalities were reported, and two-thirds of the accidents resulted in proper-
ty damage only (no injuries). Furthermore, while one-third of the accidents
occurred under icy/snowy road conditions, each of these accidents involved a
single vehicle, and there were no injuries. Therefore, because the proposed
project would result in an increase of up to 1,600 daily one-way trips, includ-
ing 160 peak-hour trips, on this roadway segment, which when compared to
existing conditions, equates to about a 50-percent increase in the total peak-
hour traffic volume, hazards at this already deficient roadway segment haz-
ards with the addition of the proposed project would be significant.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-59
e. Result in inadequate emergency access.
While Glenshire Drive and Martis Peak Road currently serve the project area,
new internal access roads would be created on the project site. The privately
owned and maintained internal roadway system would provide residential
and emergency vehicle access. Vehicles would circulate through the project
area using the internal roadway system and main entrance point off Martis
Peak Road approximately 690 feet south of its intersection with Glenshire
Drive. As noted in the Chapter 3, Project Description, and shown on Figure
3-5 of this Draft EIR, emergency access would be provided by creating a sec-
ondary access point to the project off of Edinburgh Drive located on the
western border of the project site. Fire lanes and turning radii would be de-
signed to meet the standards of the TFPD so as to be adequate for emergency
response vehicles. Roadways would be designed with all weather surfaces and
would be capable of supporting emergency vehicles up to 40,000 pounds.
Consistent with General Plan Policy SAF-P4.7, the project’s final site plans
would be reviewed by the TFPD for adequate emergency access, site design
for maintenance of defensible space and use of non-materials prior to the issu-
ance of building permits.
Furthermore, as described in Chapter 3, Project Description, project con-
struction Phase 1 would include the construction of the connecting roadway
between the project’s main access point and the secondary emergency access
point at Edinburgh Drive prior to the completion of the proposed homes.
Therefore, considering the completion of this connecting road between the
project’s two access points and roadways built to Town and TFPD standards
the project would provide adequate emergency access and impacts would be
less than significant.
f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public trans-
it, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance
or safety of such facilities.
The project is consistent with General Plan Policy CIR-P4.1 and CIR-P10.2,
which requires transportation systems to be planned and constructed in con-
junction with significant development projects, including roads, trails,
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-60
bikeways, and other improvements, to provide links to the existing transpor-
tation network, and implement the network of trails and bikeways described
in the TBMP. The project would create internal roads that would interface at
various points on the project site and would connect to Edinburgh Drive and
Martis Peak Road. As described in detail in Chapter 3, Project Description,
and Chapter 4.13, Public Services and Recreation, of this Draft EIR, the pro-
ject includes a 4.5-mile publicly accessible trail system. Consistent with Gen-
eral Plan Policy CIR-P10.5, the proposed trail network includes public access
points that utilize existing trail alignments to provide connectivity to the sur-
rounding community and adjacent open spaces for permitted and lawful use
of on-site trails by the public. Similar to surrounding residential areas, the
project would not include sidewalks. The project’s proposed 4.5-mile trail
system exceeds the new pedestrian facilities beyond those identified in the
TBMP consistent with General Plan Policy CIR-P10.3.
While there are no bicycle lanes currently proposed as part of the project, the
proposed publicly accessible trail system would connect to the Town’s pro-
posed recreational trail corridor as identified in the TBMP generally crossing
the project site in an east and west direction.17 The vehicular roadway net-
work would include signage to instruct drivers to be aware of cyclists and to
share the road.
General Plan Policy CIR-P4.2 requires planning for land use and transporta-
tion systems in new growth areas that provides opportunities for residents,
employees, and those without vehicles to accomplish many of their trips by
walking, bicycling or using transit. While the project is a permitted land use
consistent with General Plan land use designations (RC/OS and RES) and
zoning districts (OS and RS-1.0) it is located on the eastern border of the
Town limit and is not located in close proximity to basic commercial services.
Future residents would have access to the Dial-A-Ride bus service in the pro-
vided throughout the greater Truckee area. However, it is likely future resi-
dents of the project, similar to those of the surrounding Glenshire area,
17 Town of Truckee Trails and Bikeway Master Plan Appendix D, Exhibit 1,
Existing and Proposed Trail and Bikeway Network, Section 42, as of May 17, 2007.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-61
would rely on “trip-chaining”18 to reduce trips as opposed to alternate modes
of transportation. Therefore, future residents of the project would be primar-
ily automobile dependent as the project is not in close proximity to basic
commercial services and the project would not be consistent with this policy.
Nonetheless, when considering the project’s rural location and overall con-
sistency with the General Plan and the TBMP as identified above, the project
would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public
transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance
or safety of such facilities, and impacts would be less than significant.
2. Cumulative Impacts
The addition of the 2031 project-generated turning movement volumes to the
“2031 without project” intersection volumes yields the “2031 with project”
volumes that are shown in Figure 4.14-9 and Table 4.14-13.
a. 2031 Level of Service Impacts
All study intersections were evaluated to determine operational conditions
under future 2031 traffic volumes.19 Table 4.14-14 summarizes the results for
future 2031 conditions without the project. In comparison with existing 2011
conditions, the LOS at the Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection
would improve to an acceptable level (LOS F with less than four vehicle-
hours of delay on the worst approach) in the future peak hours, due to the
addition of the Donner Pass Road Extension. The level of service is expected
to degrade by one level at some of the other study intersections in the future,
due to growth in background traffic. However, as indicated in Table 4.14-14,
all study intersections would operate within the applicable level of service
18 Due to the relatively long travel distance from Glenshire to the rest of the
Truckee community, “trip chaining” (making multiple stops as part of a single exter-
nal round-trip from the residential area) would occur resulting in reduced vehicular
trips.
19 The output from each of the LOS calculations for the study intersections is
provided in Appendix F of the Traffic Impact Analysis, which is included in Appendix
I of this Draft EIR.
0
0
5
4
1
78
6
3
2
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 GLENSHIREDR./
DONNERPASSRD.1
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.
JAC
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1 GLENSHIREDR./2
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 GLENSHIREDR./
DORCHESTERDR.3
DONNERPASSRD.EXTENSION
203
522
334
46
351 188
50
48120
264
368
182
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 GLENSHIREDR./
R.DELADHCSRIH615 U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 HIRSCHDALERD./
I-80WESTBOUNDRAMPS8U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 HIRSCHDALERD./
I-80EASTBOUNDRAMPS7GLENSHIREDR./
SOMERSETDR.
14
JACKSVALLEYRD.
404/449
GLENSHIREDR./MARTIS
PEAKRD./WHITEHORSERD.
145
36
8
51
203 122
0
039 65
98 112
40
15
144
218
191
15227
143209
54
104
51 179 32
84 24 147
29
132
67
21
125
112
678
32 35 159
116
245
HIGHWAYS
STREETS
RAILROAD
LAKE
STUDYINTERSECTIONS
TRAFFICMOVEMENT
TRAFFICVOLUME
LEGEND
1
INMILES
SCALE0 .5
8
89
GLENS
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
TRUCKEE
80
80
267
SITEEDINBURGH
Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., 2012.
FIGURE 4.14-9
2031 PM TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH PROJECT
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-63
TABLE 4.14-13 2031 TRAFFIC VOLUMES DURING AM AND SCHOOL PM PEAK HOUR WITH PROJECT
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
Total Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right
AM Peak Hour
Glenshire Drive / Donner Pass Road 151 -- 476 -- -- -- -- 181 50 132 185 -- 1,175
Glenshire Drive / Dorchester Drive (west) -- -- -- 72 -- 239 156 96 -- -- 266 80 909
Glenshire Drive / Somerset Drive 48 -- 16 -- -- -- -- 53 18 9 118 -- 262
Glenshire Drive / Martis Peak Road 66 0 97 13 0 18 7 89 35 34 38 6 403
School PM Peak Hour
Glenshire Drive / Dorchester Drive (west) -- -- -- 75 -- 157 211 234 -- -- 162 38 877
Glenshire Drive / Somerset Drive 23 -- 5 -- -- -- -- 117 39 8 94 -- 286
Glenshire Drive / Martis Peak Road 43 0 62 6 0 13 12 62 76 105 81 17 477
Note: Assumes site access via Martis Peak Road only.
Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., August 2012. Canyon Springs Traffic Impact Analysis, Table 12.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-64
TABLE 4.14-14 2031 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE
Intersection Control Type
Without Project With Projecta
Total Intersection Worst Movement Total Intersection Worst Movement
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Summer PM Peak Hour
Glenshire Drive / Donner Pass Road Side Street Stop 16.8 C OVF Fb 17.1 C OVF F b
Glenshire Drive / DPR extension Side Street Stop 3.2 A 30.2 D 3.8 A 35.3 E
Glenshire Drive / Dorchester Drive (west) Side Street Stop 5.3 A 17.2 C 5.5 A 20.8 C
Glenshire Drive / Somerset Drive All-Way Stop 8.5 A 8.7 A 9.2 A 9.5 A
Glenshire Drive / Martis Peak Road Side Street Stop 1.6 A 10.3 B 4.4 A 13.0 B
Hirschdale Road / Glenshire Drive Side Street Stop 9.2 A 17.2 C 10.5 B 23.4 C
Hirschdale Road / I-80 EB Ramps Side Street Stop 6.0 A 12.2 B 6.6 A 13.7 B
Hirschdale Road / I-80 WB Ramps Side Street Stop 5.3 A 9.8 A 5.8 A 10.1 B
AM Peak Hour
Glenshire Drive / Donner Pass Road Side Street Stop 11.0 B 23.0 C 11.4 B 23.5 C
Glenshire Drive / Dorchester Drive (west) Side Street Stop 7.8 A 17.2 C 8.1 A 19.4 C
Glenshire Drive / Somerset Drive All-Way Stop 7.5 A 7.6 A 7.7 A 7.9 A
Glenshire Drive / Martis Peak Road Side Street Stop 2.5 A 9.4 A 5.8 A 10.6 B
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
TABLE 4.14-13 2031 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE (CONTINUED)
4.14-65
Intersection Control Type
Without Project With Projecta
Total Intersection Worst Movement Total Intersection Worst Movement
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
School PM
Glenshire Drive / Dorchester Drive (west) Side Street Stop 6.8 A 16.3 C 6.8 A 18.5 C
Glenshire Drive / Somerset Drive All-Way Stop 7.4 A 7.5 A 7.7 A 7.8 A
Glenshire Drive / Martis Peak Road Side Street Stop 1.9 A 9.3 A 4.8 A 11.3 B
a Assumes access to the site via Martis Peak Road only.
b The Town of Truckee level of service standard for unsignalized approaches states that an unsignalized movement at LOS F with greater than 4 total vehicle-hours of delay is unacceptable. As
the total delay for this movement is less than 4 vehicle-hours, the LOS is acceptable.
OVF = Overflow. Overflow indicates an excessive delay, which cannot be accurately calculated using HCM methodology.
Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., August 2012. Canyon Springs Traffic Impact Analysis, Table 13.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-66
thresholds in 2031 with the proposed project. Therefore, 2031 level of service
impacts would be less than significant.
b. 2031 Intersection Queuing Analysis
As previously described, traffic queues at specific intersections that exceed the
storage capacity of turn lanes or ramps, or that block turn movements at im-
portant nearby intersections or driveways, can cause operational problems
beyond those identified in the level of service analysis. Similar to existing
conditions, the 95th-percentile traffic queue length was reviewed at locations
where queuing could potentially cause traffic problems in 2031. The traffic
queue lengths for the left-turn movement from Glenshire Drive onto Donner
Pass Road during the summer PM peak hour are expected to decrease in the
future, due to the implementation of the Donner Pass Road Extension.
The longest traffic queue length for vehicles stopped on Dorchester Drive
(West) waiting to turn onto Glenshire Drive occurs during the AM peak
hour. The 95th-percentile queue length on this approach is approximately
three vehicles in 2031 without the proposed project. Assuming 25 feet per
vehicle, this equates to a total queue length of about 75 feet. As the nearest
driveway on Dorchester Drive is located about 180 feet from the intersection,
no operational problems are identified without the proposed project. There-
fore, queuing impacts would be less than significant.
c. 2031 Turn Lane Warrants
As discussed above under 2011 conditions, the need for left-turn lanes was
evaluated at the following two locations:
¤ Glenshire Drive at the Western End of Dorchester Drive: Based upon
the 2011 AM and PM peak-hour traffic volumes, an eastbound left-turn
lane is warranted along Glenshire Drive at its intersection with Dorches-
ter Drive (West), with or without the project under future conditions.
The calculated 95th-percentile traffic queue length on the eastbound left-
turn movement is less than one vehicle.
¤ Whitehorse Road/Martis Peak Road Intersection: The traffic volumes
at the Glenshire Drive/Whitehorse Road/Martis Peak Road intersection
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-67
do not warrant a left-turn lane along Glenshire Drive under future condi-
tions, with or without the project. Therefore, a left-turn lane along
Glenshire Drive is not warranted at this location.
The need for right-turn lanes was evaluated at the following two locations:
¤ Glenshire Drive at Dorchester Drive (West): The right-turn lane war-
rant is not met under future conditions, with or without the project.
Therefore, the addition of new right-turn lanes is not warranted.
¤ Whitehorse Road/Martis Peak Road Intersection: The right-turn lane
warrant is not met under future conditions, with or without the project.
Therefore, the addition of new right-turn lanes is not warranted.
Because a left-turn lane is warranted at the Glenshire Drive at the western end
of Dorchester Drive, turn lane impacts would be significant under 2031 condi-
tions.
d. 2031 Roadway Capacity
Table 4.14-15 presents a comparison of 2031 roadway volumes with the perti-
nent standards. The ADT volumes for 2031 conditions were estimated using
the same methodology as the 2011 volumes described above. As shown, all
study roadway segments are expected to operate within the allowable traffic
volume threshold, with or without implementation of the proposed project.
Therefore, roadway capacity impacts at future buildout would be less than
significant.
e. 2031 Local Residential Roadways Impacts
Similar to existing conditions, the increase in traffic on the local roadways as
a result of the proposed project under 2031 conditions would not impact the
traffic volumes on local roadway segments from Somerset Drive to Edin-
burgh Drive given that the Edinburgh access point would be gated for emer-
gency access only. Furthermore, as described under 2011 Local Roadway
Impacts, the segment of Martis Peak Road between Glenshire Drive and the
proposed main project access point would not meet Town standards with the
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-68
TABLE 4.14-15 2031 ROADWAY LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
Roadway Segment Jurisdiction Classification
LOS
Threshold
Maximum
Allowable
Volume to Obtain
LOS Standard PM
Peak Hour
Two-Way
Volume
PM
Peak Hour
Peak
Direction
Volume ADTa,b
LOS
Threshold
Exceeded?
Peak
Hour
Per Lane ADT
Without Project
Glenshire Drive, between Donner
Pass Road and Highland Avenue Town of Truckee Minor Arterial D 1,420 -- 1,091 686 11,560 No
Glenshire Drive, between Highland
Avenue and Dorchester Drive (West) Town of Truckee Minor Arterial D 1,420 -- 855 582 8,900 No
Glenshire Drive, between Dorchester
Drive (West) and Somerset Drive Town of Truckee Minor Arterial D 1,420 -- 560 360 5,830 No
Glenshire Drive, between Somerset
Drive and Martis Peak Road Town of Truckee Minor Arterial D 1,420 -- 304 167 3,160 No
Glenshire Drive, between Martis Peak
Road and Hirschdale Road Nevada County Minor Collector C -- 7,600 304 155 3,030 No3
Hirschdale Road, between Glenshire
drive and I-80 Westbound Ramps Nevada County Minor Collector C -- 7,600 532 268 5,300 No
Martis Peak Road, between Glenshire
Drive and Project Access Nevada County Private Road N/Ad N/Ad N/Ad 26 15 250 No
Somerset Drive between Glenshire
Drive and Courtenay Lane Town of Truckee Local Roadway D 500 -- 217 158 2,060 No
Courtenay Lane between Somerset
Drive and Regency Circlee Town of Truckee Local Roadway D 500 -- 62 45 590 No
Regency Circlee Town of Truckee Local Roadway D 500 -- 60 44 570 No
Edinburgh Drivee Town of Truckee Local Roadway D 500 -- 16 12 150 No
With Proposed Project
Glenshire Drive, between Donner
Pass Road and Highland Avenue Town of Truckee Minor Arterial D 1,420 -- 1,122 710 11,890 No
Glenshire Drive, between Highland
Avenue and Dorchester Drive (West) Town of Truckee Minor Arterial D 1,420 -- 934 632 9,720 No
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
TABLE 4.14-13 2031 ROADWAY LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)
4.14-69
Roadway Segment Jurisdiction Classification
LOS
Threshold
Maximum
Allowable
Volume to Obtain
LOS Standard PM
Peak Hour
Two-Way
Volume
PM
Peak Hour
Peak
Direction
Volume ADTa,b
LOS
Threshold
Exceeded?
Peak
Hour
Per Lane ADT
Glenshire Drive, between Dorchester
Drive (West) and Somerset Drive Town of Truckee Minor Arterial D 1,420 -- 648 416 6,750 No
Glenshire Drive, between Somerset
Drive and Martis Peak Road Town of Truckee Minor Arterial D 1,420 -- 400 228 4,160 No
Glenshire Drive, between Martis Peak
Road and Hirschdale Road Nevada County Minor Collector C -- 7,600 464 258 4,630 No3
Hirschdale Road, between Glenshire
drive and I-80 Westbound Ramps Nevada County Minor Collector C -- 7,600 683 362 6,810 No
Martis Peak Road, between Glenshire
Drive and Project Access Town of Truckeef Collectorf D 890 -- 283 179 2,680 No
Somerset Drive between Glenshire
Drive and Courtenay Lane Town of Truckee Local Roadway D 500 -- 217 158 2,060 No
Courtenay Lane between Somerset
Drive and Regency Circlee Town of Truckee Local Roadway D 500 -- 62 45 590 No
Regency Circlee Town of Truckee Local Roadway D 500 -- 60 44 570 No
Edinburgh Drivee Town of Truckee Local Roadway D 500 -- 16 12 150 No
Notes: Assumes site access via Martis Peak Road only.
ADT = Average Daily Traffic volume
a ADT is estimated using an ADT-to-peak-hour volume factor calculated from traffic counts, except for local roadways.
b Local roadway ADT is estimated using the ratio of daily to PM peak hour ITE trip rates for single- family dwelling units.
c Although there is no level of service deficiency, this roadway segment has an existing geometric deficiency.
d Nevada County does not have a volume criterion for private roads.
e Traffic volumes are estimated for these roadway segments by applying trip generation rates to the number of dwelling units served.
f Although Martis Peak Road is located outside Town limits, this roadway segment is required to meet Town standards with the project, as the Town is processing the Project Application.
Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., 2012. Canyon Springs Traffic Impact Analysis, Table 14.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-70
project. Therefore, the proposed project would not meet the adopted stand-
ard for impacts to local residential roadways and impacts would be significant.
E. Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact TRANS-1: The Glenshire Drive/Donner Pass Road intersection
exceeds the LOS thresholds during the PM peak hour in 2011 without the
proposed project. Implementation of the proposed project would exacerbate
an existing deficiency at this intersection, as it would result in increased ve-
hicular delays during the PM peak hour.
Mitigation Measure TRANS-1: The project applicant shall construct a
center turn lane on Donner Pass Road to allow two-stage left-turn
movements to be made from Glenshire Drive. The turn lane shall be
constructed during Phase 1 of project construction and prior to any Par-
cel or Final Map recordation. Project construction shall not exceed a
maximum of 102 single-family lots and eight affordable housing lots until
the completion of the Donner Pass Road Extension is identified in the
CIP, fully funded, or scheduled for completion within three years of the
beginning of Phase 6, or any phase that exceeds 102 single-family lots and
eight affordable lots, of the proposed project.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
Impact TRANS-2: The segment of Martis Peak Road that provides access to
the project site is subject to the Town’s thresholds and would have an ADT
volume exceeding 2,000 vehicles, and it would function as a collector road-
way. This roadway segment has a total pavement width ranging from 20 to
23 feet and does not meet the adopted standard for impacts to local residential
roadways and impacts local roadways under 2011 conditions.
Mitigation Measure TRANS-2: The project applicant shall widen the
segment of Martis Peak Road between Glenshire Drive and the project’s
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-71
main entrance to provide 12-foot travel lanes with 2-foot shoulders dur-
ing Phase 1 of project construction.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
Impact TRANS-3: Based upon the AM and PM peak-hour traffic volumes,
an eastbound left-turn lane is warranted along Glenshire Drive at its intersec-
tion with Dorchester Drive (West), with or without the project under 2011
and 2031 conditions.
Mitigation Measure TRANS-3: Install an eastbound left-turn lane along
Glenshire Drive at its intersection with Dorchester Drive (West) during
construction Phase 1 of the proposed project. The turn lane shall pro-
vide approximately 50 feet of storage length.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
Impact TRANS-4: Construction trips added to Glenshire Drive/Donner
Pass Road or the eastbound left-turn lane along Glenshire Drive at its inter-
section with the western end of Dorchester Drive intersection would exacer-
bate these already deficient intersections.
Mitigation Measure TRANS-4: A Construction Traffic Management Plan
shall be prepared and approved by the Town’s Public Works Department
prior to Phase 1 construction of the project.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
Impact TRANS-5: The existing pavement width on the roadway segment on
Glenshire Drive east of Martis Peak Road currently accommodates 11-foot
travel lanes with no shoulder in some locations and both Nevada County and
Town of Truckee roadway design standards call for 12-foot lanes with 4-foot
shoulders, and maximum grade of eight percent. The increase in traffic from
the proposed project would exacerbate this existing geometric deficiency.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.14-72
Mitigation Measure TRANS-5: The project applicant shall fund a safety
study as well as implementation of the recommended safety improve-
ments along this roadway segment as a result of the safety study. The
scope and cost of the study should be reviewed and approved by the
Town prior to the study being conducted. Funding shall be in place pri-
or to the issuance of grading or building permits and safety improve-
ments along Glenshire Drive east of Martis Peak Road should be imple-
mented as a part of Phase 1 construction.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.
4.15 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.15-1
This section describes the water, wastewater, solid waste disposal, and energy
infrastructure serving Truckee and analyzes the potential impacts to provid-
ing service to the proposed project. Stormwater is addressed in Section 4.9,
Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Draft EIR. Public utilities for the pro-
ject site would be provided by Truckee Donner Public Utilities District (wa-
ter), Truckee Sanitary District and Tahoe-Truckee Sanitary Agency
(wastewater), Tahoe Truckee Sierra Disposal (solid waste) Southwest Gas
(natural gas), and Liberty Energy – California Pacific Electric Company (elec-
tricity). The following is organized according to type of utility, with existing
conditions, standards of significance and analysis of project- and specific cu-
mulative impacts analyzed individually for each utility.
A. Water Supply
The information and analysis in this section is primarily based on the follow-
ing documents, which are available for review at the Town of Truckee Plan-
ning Department and on-line:1
¤ Truckee Donner Public Utility District (TDPUD) Water System Master
Plan 1995-2015 prepared by Sauers Engineering, Inc., adopted March 19,
1997. Updated in January 2001 and June 2004.
¤ TDPUD Urban Water Management Plan adopted June 2011. Prepared by
Neil Kaufman, Water System Engineer.
1. Regulatory Setting
This section describes the federal, State, and local regulations that provide for
protection and management of water resources and services.
a. Federal Regulations
There are no federal regulations regarding water supply services that are ap-
plicable to the proposed project.
1 Truckee Donner Public Utilities District (TDPUD) website at
www.tdpud.org.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.15-2
b. State Regulations
i. California Department of Water Resources
The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) manages the water
resources of California in cooperation with other agencies, to benefit the
State's people, and to protect, restore, and enhance the natural and human
environments. The DWR represented the State in negotiations leading up to
the signing of the Truckee River Operating Agreement (TROA). The TROA
contains an interstate allocation of water between California and Nevada.
Similarly, Public Law 101-618, also known as the Truckee-Carson-Pyramid
Lake Water Rights Settlement Act (Settlement Act), includes an interstate
allocation of surface and groundwater in the Lake Tahoe and Truckee Basins.
Although the Settlement Act was enacted in 1990, it does not become effec-
tive until the TROA goes into effect. The TROA was signed on September
6, 2008; however, will not go into effect until the federal litigation concerning
the TROA is resolved. The TROA interprets the Settlement Act to apply
only to wells drilled after May 1, 1996. Any new wells drilled by the
TDPUD would be subject to the requirements of the TROA once it goes into
effect, which according to the DWR could be within the next few years (i.e.
the life of the proposed project).2
ii. Urban Water Management Planning Act
Through the Urban Water Management Act of 1983, the California Water
Code requires all urban water suppliers within California to prepare and
adopt an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and update it every five
years. This requirement applies to all suppliers providing water to more than
3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet3 of water annually.
This Act is intended to support conservation and efficient use of urban water
supplies at the local level. The Act requires that total projected water use be
compared to water supply sources over the next 20 years in five-year incre-
ments, that planning occur for single and multiple dry water years and that
plans include a water recycling analysis that incorporates a description of the
2 Eric Hong, Chief, North Central Region Office, DWR. Written correspond-
ence to Denyelle Nishimori, Associate Planner, Town of Truckee, May 27, 2011.
3 One acre-foot is equal to approximately 325,821 gallons.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.15-3
wastewater collection and treatment system within the agency’s service area
along with current and potential recycled water uses.4 The TDPUD adopted
the current UWMP in June 2011. The 2011 UWMP provides information
about TDPUD responsibilities towards water supply. The TDPUD acquires
its water from the Martis Valley Groundwater Basin (MVGB), which has a
total subsurface storage volume of 484,000 acre-feet.5 The 2011 UWMP is
based on growth projections for the region, which indicate that the existing
service area will reach buildout conditions in the year 2038. The TDPUD
included the current population and projected growth rates from the Town’s
General Plan for the preparation of its 2011 UWMP. Thus, according to Wa-
ter Code Section 10910 (c)(2), the analysis of water demand for the project
may be derived from the UWMP.
iii. Groundwater Management Act
The Groundwater Management Act of the California Water Code (AB 3030)
provides guidance for applicable local agencies to develop a voluntary
Groundwater Management Plan (GMP) in State-designated groundwater ba-
sins. AB 3030 provides local water agencies with procedures to develop a
groundwater management plan so those agencies can manage their groundwa-
ter resources efficiently and safely while protecting the quality of supplies.
Once a plan is adopted, the rules and regulations contained therein must also
be adopted to implement the program outlined in the plan. GMPs can allow
agencies to raise revenue to pay for measures influencing the management of
the basin, including extraction, recharge, conveyance, facilities’ maintenance,
and water quality.6
4 Department of Water Resources, Urban Water Management Planning Pro-
gram website: http://www.owue.water.ca.gov/urbanplan/index.cfm, accessed Sep-
tember 9, 2011.
5 Truckee Donner Public Utility District 2011 Urban Water Management Plan,
page 5-2.
6 California Department of Water Resources Website:
http://www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/gwmanagement/ab_3030.cfm. retrieved Sep-
tember 9, 2011.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.15-4
The TDPUD adopted a GMP for the entire Martis Valley Groundwater Ba-
sin on January 3, 1995. On April 6, 2011 the TDPUD adopted Resolution
No. 2011-01 which declared its intent to update its GWP and Adopt a State-
ment of Public Participation. However, as noted in the 2006 Town of
Truckee General Plan certified EIR, additional studies have been conducted
since the preparation of the 1995 GMP to better inform TDPUD, Placer
County Water Agency (PCWA) and the Northstar Community Services Dis-
trict (NCSD), who are all dependant on the Martis Valley Basin for water
supply, about the status of the basin’s capacity.7 The outcome of the most
recent evaluation by Nimbus Engineering in 2001 and verified by Kennedy/
Jenks Consultant in 2002 concluded that the sustainable yield of the ground-
water basin was set at 24,000 acre-feet per year (afy) or 21.4 million gallons
per day (mgd) for all withdrawals.8
iv. Nevada County Local Agency Formation Commission
c. The Legislature has charged the Local Agency Formation Commission
(LAFCo) with carrying out changes in governmental organization to
promote specified legislative policies now codified in the Cortese-Knox-
Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000. The Cortese-
Knox-Hertzberg Act commences with Section 56000 of the Government
Code, and the reader is referred especially to Section 56001, 56300, 56301,
56375, 56377, and 56668. These sections contain the following major pol-
icy elements:
1. Orderly Growth. LAFCo is charged with encouraging orderly growth
and development. Providing housing for persons and families of all in-
comes is an important factor in promoting orderly development.
2. Logical Boundaries. LAFCo is responsible for encouraging the logical
formation and determination of boundaries.
7 Truckee 2025 General Plan EIR, Chapter 4.13, Utilities and Service Systems,
page 4.13-1.
8 Truckee Donner Public Utility District 2011 Urban Water Management Plan,
page 5-2 and -3.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.15-5
3. Efficient Services. LAFCo must exercise its authority to ensure that af-
fected populations receive adequate, efficient, and effective governmental
services.
4. Preserve Agricultural and Open Spaces. LAFCo is required to exercise
its authority to guide development away from open space and prime agri-
cultural land uses unless such actions would not promote planned, order-
ly, and efficient development.
The project application includes a request to annex the project site into the
TDPUD. The proposed boundary change will require approval from Nevada
County LAFCo.
d. Local Regulations
i. Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan
The Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan contains goals and policies related
to water supply in the Town. Relevant goals and policies are contained in
Table 4.15-1.
ii. Water System Master Plan
The TDPUD contracted with Sauers Engineering, Inc. to prepare a Water
System Master Plan (WSMP) spanning 1995 to 2015. The aim of the plan was
to assist the TDPUD in identifying existing deficiencies in capacity and ser-
vice; budgeting for correction of these deficiencies; anticipating areas where
growth is likely to occur that is consistent with the Town of Truckee, Neva-
da County and Placer County General Plans; identifying system improve-
ments necessary to serve such growth; and, analyzing the TDPUD’s current
facilities fee and setting future facilities fees.9 The draft of the 2011 WSMP
has been prepared, but it has not yet been adopted.10
9 Truckee Donner Public Utility District 1995-2015 Water System Master Plan.
Last updated June 2004.
10 Truckee Donner Public Utility District, http://www.tdpud.org/
index.php?cId=16, accessed on April 26, 2012.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.15-6
TABLE 4.15-1 TOWN OF TRUCKEE GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES
RELEVANT TO WATER SUPPLY SERVICES
Policy or
Goal No. Goals and Policies
Goal LU-4 Coordinate land development with provision of services and infrastruc-
ture.
LU-P4.1
Work with all special districts, including the Tahoe-Truckee Uni-
fied School District, to ensure that development within the Town is
coordinated with provision of services.
LU-P4.2
Cooperate with special districts to plan for and identify suitable
future sites for needed facilities, including schools, fire stations,
solid and liquid waste disposal sites, and utilities infrastructure, so
that the local population can be safely and efficiently served, while
minimizing potential environmental impacts.
LU-P4.3
Approve rezoning and development permits only when adequate
services are available, or when a program to provide services has
been approved by the applicable District and the Town of Truckee.
Standards of services for new development applicable to this policy
are shown in Table LU-6.
Require that sewer be provided for all new residential subdivisions
creating more than four lots, and all new commercial and industrial
uses. Existing legal lots and new subdivisions of four or fewer lots
in areas currently without sewer may be developed with residential
uses using septic systems with the approval of the appropriate
health and environmental agencies.
Such lots may be required to establish connections to the sewer
system if they are located in close proximity to existing or future
sewer lines.
Goal COS-11 Protect water quality and quantity in creeks, lakes, natural drainages
and groundwater basins.
COS-P11.1 Minimize excessive paving that negatively impacts surface water
runoff and groundwater recharge rates.
COS-P11.7 Ensure that all proposed developments can be adequately served by
available water supplies.
COS-P11.8 Support all efforts to encourage water conservation by Truckee
residents and businesses, and public agencies, including working
with the Truckee Donner Public Utility District, to implement
water conservation programs and incentives that facilitate conserva-
tion efforts.
Source: Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.15-7
iii. Water Facilities Fees Ordinance
Effective June 2005, the Water Facilities Fee Ordinance was passed by the
TDPUD Board of Directors to finance public water system facilities needed
to serve new development and to reduce the impacts of additional demands
on the existing water system caused by new development. Water facilities
fees for residential development are calculated and charted according to an
amount per square foot of living space for the area to be constructed. The
facilities fees are $1.64 times the square feet of living space as determined by
the Building Permit.11
iv. Water Connection Fees Ordinance
Effective April 2008, the Water Connection Fee Ordinance was passed by the
TDPUD Board of Directors to reimburse the TDPUD for the actual adminis-
trative, material, and labor costs of connecting to the water system (excluding
the service lateral).12
2. Existing Setting
Water service in the Truckee area is provided by the TDPUD, a non-profit
utility providing electric and water service since 1927.13 The TDPUD oper-
ates two water systems in the Truckee area: the Hirschdale System and the
Truckee System. Other water systems in the project vicinity include the
Placer County Water Agency’s (PCWA) Zone 4 service area, which is imme-
diately south of the TDPUD water system. The PCWA contracts with the
Northstar Community Services District to operate system.14
11 Truckee Donner Public Utility District Water Facilities Fees,
http://www.tdpud.org/index.php?cId=44, retrieved September 8, 2011.
12 Truckee Donner Public Utility District Ordinance No. 2008 – 01 Amending
Water Connection Fees, http://www.tdpud.org/index.php?cId=7, retrieved Septem-
ber 8, 2011.
13 Truckee Donner Public Utility District website, http://www.tdpud.org/
index.php?cId=1, accessed September 7, 2011.
14 Truckee Donner Public Utility District 2011 Urban Water Management Plan,
page 2-1.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.15-8
The TDPUD provides water to portions of the Town, along with adjacent
unincorporated areas of Nevada and Placer Counties. The project site is not
currently within the TDPUD service area as defined by Nevada County
LAFCo. The Nevada County LAFCo is currently preparing an update to the
sphere of influence (SOI) of the TDPUD that would result in the project area
being located in the TDPUD’s long-term SOI; however, this update is not
anticipated to be complete until 2016.15 Nonetheless, the TDPUD, the only
public water purveyor that has existing water system facilities adjacent to the
project site, will serve the project site upon approval of the annexation of the
project site into the TDPUD service territory by the Nevada County
LAFCo.16 Furthermore, as discussed in the 2011 UWMP, the Town’s popu-
lation and growth projections, which include the proposed project, is equal to
the population of the TDPUD water service area.17 Accordingly, any cumu-
lative future water demand projections calculated by the TDPUD include the
maximum density of 213 single-family homes on the project site.
a. Water Supply
The TDPUD pumps its water from the Martis Valley Groundwater Basin
(MVGB). The MVGB is a low-lying area of approximately 57 square miles
that is completely contained within a larger watershed of approximately
167 square miles.
The MVGB has a total subsurface storage volume of 484,000 acre-feet and is
made up of a multiple aquifer system composed of basin-fill sedimentary units
and interlayed basin-fill volcanic units.18 Infiltration from surface water and
precipitation supplies the upper unconfined aquifer system, which in turn
15 S.R. Jones, Executive Officer, Nevada LAFCo. Email correspondence with
Denyelle Nishimori, Associate Planner, Town of Truckee, May 2, 2011.
16 Neil Kaufman, Water System Engineer, TDPUD. Written correspondence
with Denyelle Nishimori, Associate Planner, April 19, 2011 and August 25, 2011.
17 Truckee Donner Public Utility District 2011 Urban Water Management Plan,
page 2-4.
18 Truckee Donner Public Utility District 2011 Urban Water Management Plan,
page 5-2.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.15-9
feeds adjacent wetland areas. Annual groundwater recharge depends heavily
on snowmelt in the late spring and early summer from April through June.19
The basin-wide annual recharge is estimated at 29,165 afy and a sustainable
yield of the MVGB is 24,000 afy or 21.4 mgd. The California Department of
Water Resources has not determined that the MVGB is overdrafted and no
instances of contamination within the aquifers are known. Furthermore, the
MVGB is not adjudicated20 and none of the groundwater users has expressed a
desire to have the MVGB adjudicated to date.21 Based on recent studies of the
groundwater basin, available water was estimated to be adequate to serve the
projected buildout of the TDPUD service area and the Town of Truckee.22
Given the total subsurface storage and sustainable yield of 24,000 AFY, there
is enough available water in the basin for the next 20 years of service even if
no recharge occurred.23
b. Water Service and Facilities
The TDPUD maintains approximately 216 miles of transmission, distribu-
tion, and service pipeline ranging from 2 inches to 24 inches in diameter.24
The TDPUD also maintains 1,530 main line valves, 870 fire hydrants, 130 air
release valves, 100 blow-off valves, and 20 pressure reducing stations.25
19 Pacific Municipal Consultants, 2002. Old Greenwood Planned Development
Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2001102077).
20 Adjudicated is the legal process by which an arbiter reviews evidence of op-
posing parties to decide rights and obligations between parties.
21 Truckee Donner Public Utility District 2011 Urban Water Management Plan,
page 5-2.
22 Truckee Donner Public Utility District 2011 Urban Water Management Plan,
page 5-8.
23 Truckee Donner Public Utility District 2011 Urban Water Management Plan,
page 5-3.
24 Truckee Donner Public Utility District 2011 Urban Water Management Plan,
page 3-5.
25 Truckee Donner Public Utility District 1995-2015 Water System Master Plan,
updated June 2004.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.15-10
Because elevations throughout service area vary, water is stored in tanks that
are strategically placed throughout the area and transported to higher eleva-
tions areas through a series of pump stations. The TDPUD currently main-
tains 13 active wells to supply potable water and three active wells to supply
non-potable water, 33 active storage tanks and 25 pumping stations, to serve
approximately 16,200 water customers in 46 pressure zones. The total pro-
duction capacity of the active potable water wells is approximately 14 mgd or
43 acre-feet per day (afd) and the total firm production capacity26 is 10.9 mgd
or 34 afd.27
c. System Capacity and Improvements
Current water demand in the service area averages 4.53 mgd or 13.9 afd, with
a peak of 9.53 mgd or 29.2 afd that occurred on July 6, 2010. The current
maximum potable water demand for the TDPUD is 9.53 mgd or 29.2 afd,
with maximum demand estimated to be 14.58 mgd or 44.7 afd at buildout of
the 2025 General Plan and between 20.3 mgd or 62.3 afd and 21.88 mgd or
67.1 afd at buildout based on growth projections for the region, which indi-
cate that the existing service area will reach buildout conditions in the year
2038.28 In order to meet this future demand, a total of five new wells, at a
capacity of 850 gpm each for a total production capacity of 23.8 mgd or 73 afd
and a firm production capacity of 20.7 mgd or 63.5 afd, will be required to
provide adequate capacity.29 Additional wells, for a total of eight wells,
would be required to meet firm capacity production.30 In order to address
limitations in storage and transmission, the TDPUD has identified the need
26 “Firm Capacity” means adequate pumping equipment and/or treatment ca-
pacity to meet peak daily demand.
27 Truckee Donner Public Utility District 2011 Urban Water Management Plan,
pages 2-5, 3-1, and 3-4, and Figure 3-3.
28 Truckee Donner Public Utility District 2011 Urban Water Management Plan,
page 2-4, 4-1, 4-9, 5-5, 5-6 and 5-8.
29 Truckee Donner Public Utility District 2011 Urban Water Management Plan,
page 5-8.
30 Truckee Donner Public Utility District 2011 Urban Water Management Plan,
page 5-7.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.15-11
for a series of improvements, including the construction of new wells as stat-
ed above, additional storage facilities, two new major transmission pipelines
and an upsizing of existing pipelines in some areas.31
3. Standards of Significance
The proposed project would have a significant impact with regard to water
supply if it would:
¤ Require or result in the construction of new water treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause sig-
nificant environmental effects.
¤ Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed.
4. Impact Discussion
a. Project Impacts
As previously discussed, the 2011 UWMP demand projections are based on
growth projection in the 2025 General Plan.32 The 2025 General Plan as-
sumed that 213 housing units could be constructed on the project site under
RS-1.0 Zoning District (Single-Family Residential, density of 1 du/acre), den-
sity standards. Thus, according to Water Code Section 10910 (c)(2), the anal-
ysis of water demand for the project may be derived from the UWMP.
b. Water Supply
The project is anticipated to generate 2.529 persons per household, which
would result in approximately 468 new residents for the project’s proposed
185 residential units.33 As such, the demand for domestic water in the Town
and TDPUD service area would increase as a result of the project.
31 Truckee Donner Public Utility District 1995-2015 Water System Master Plan,
updated June 2004.
32 Truckee Donner Public Utility District 2011 Urban Water Management Plan,
page 2-4.
33 Town of Truckee General Plan 2007-2014 Housing Element, Appendix A –
Housing Profile, page HA-7.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.15-12
The maximum potable water demand for the TDPUD is estimated to be
14.58 mgd or 16,316 afy at buildout of the 2025 General Plan and between
20.3 mgd or 22,740 afy and 21.88 mgd or 24,492 afy based on growth projec-
tions for the region, including areas outside of the Town limits. Buildout
projections for the existing service area are to the year 2038.34 The total cur-
rent production capacity of the active potable water wells is approximately 14
mgd or 15,695 afy and the current total firm production capacity is 10.9 mgd
or 12,410 afy.35 Therefore, in order to meet this future demand, a total of five
new wells, at a capacity of 850 gallons per minute (gpm) each for a total pro-
duction capacity of 23.8 mgd or 26,645 afy and a firm production capacity of
20.7 mgd or 23,178 afy, are planned as part of the 2011 UWMP to provide
this additional capacity.36
As discussed above, the MVGB has a total sustainable water supply of 21.4
mgd or 24,000 afy. This would occur even if no recharge took place; howev-
er, recharge of approximately 26 mgd or 29,165 afy would in fact contribute
additional water to the groundwater basin. Therefore, according to the data
provided in the 2011 UWMP, it is reasonable to assume that given the total
subsurface and sustainable yield of 24,000 afy and basin-wide annual recharge
of 29,165 afy, there is sufficient water available to support development in
Truckee and the surrounding area for buildout of the Town in 2025 and the
region in 2030.37
Furthermore, goals and policies in the 2025 General Plan, identified in Table
4.15-1 above, call for the provision of an adequate supply of water; the
maintenance of water infrastructure; coordination between land use planning
34 Truckee Donner Public Utility District 2011 Urban Water Management Plan,
pages 2-4, 4-1, 4-9, 5-5, 5-6 and 5-8.
35 Truckee Donner Public Utility District 2011 Urban Water Management Plan,
pages 2-5, 3-1, and 3-4, and Figure 3-3.
36 Truckee Donner Public Utility District 2011 Urban Water Management Plan,
page 5-8.
37 Truckee Donner Public Utility District 2011 Urban Water Management Plan,
pages 5-2 and 5-3.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.15-13
and water facilities and service; and, the promotion of water conservation
measures. These goals and policies, combined with improvements foreseen in
the TDPUD 2011 UWMP, would prevent significant impacts from occurring
to Truckee’s water supply during buildout of the 2025 General Plan and
buildout of the TPDPUD service area in the year 2038.38 Thus, project im-
pacts to water use within the Town would be considered less than significant
and no mitigation measures are required.
c. Water Infrastructure
As noted previously in this section, the TDPUD currently lacks the water
storage capacity needed to meet the demands under the projected buildout of
the service area. However, plans for construction of new wells and other
facilities improvements will allow the TDPUD to address capacity effective-
ness and meet future water demands at buildout of the General Plan.39 The
planned improvements needed to accommodate growth in the entire TDPUD
service area would be subject to environmental review during the design and
implementation phase.
There is currently no utility infrastructure on the project site. The project
would include the installation of on-site and off-site underground improve-
ments to the TDPUD water network. As shown on Figure 3-10, the pro-
posed on-site water mains would be comprised of 8-inch pipes and the sewer
mains would be comprised of both 4-inch and 6-inch pipes.
As shown on Figure 3-11, off-site infrastructure improvements would be
comprised of approximately 2,600 linear feet (lf) of new water mains. The
new 10-inch water pipe would be constructed within the existing roadway
right of ways and public utilities easements. Project Phases 1, 2 and 3 would
require approximately 300 lf of the new water pipe beginning at the end of
Courtenay Court and connecting the project’s western border and the instal-
38 Truckee Donner Public Utility District 2011 Urban Water Management Plan,
page 2-4.
39 Truckee Donner Public Utility District 1995-2015 Water System Master Plan,
updated June 2004.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.15-14
lation of the 2,300 lf of new water main beginning south of the intersection of
Somerset Drive and connecting to the “upper zone” and run northeast up
Courtenay Lane to Regency Circle to Edinburgh Drive and to the western
boundary of the project site. The new water pipes would be constructed
within highly developed areas including the roadway shoulder where conflicts
with existing utilities such as gas are not present, and within the roadway
prism following the same alignment of an existing steel water main recently
abandoned in place by the TDPUD. Temporary impacts associated with the
installation of the 2,900 lf of off-site pipelines during Phase 1 of project con-
struction would be considered to be less than significant through implementa-
tion mitigation measures and mandatory regulations described in other chap-
ters of this Draft EIR. Mitigation Measure HYDRO-1a through 1c and HY-
DRO-2a through 2c described in Section 4.9 recommends measures and Best
Management Practices to stabilize soils and minimize erosion during the con-
struction process. Mandatory regulations described in Section 4.5 of this
Draft EIR, impacts to unknown cultural resources and human remains would
be less than significant as well. Mitigation Measure TRANS-4 would reduce
temporary impact to local roadways through the preparation of a construc-
tion vehicle route to be prepared and approved by the Town’s Public Works
Department prior to the issuance of building permits. The new water pipes
are necessary to provide the project with adequate water supply and to meet
the Truckee Fire Protection District minimum flow requirements of 1,500
gallons per minute (gpm) for a two-hour duration with 20-pounds per square
inch (psi) residual.40,41 Therefore, with installation of the new water lines pre-
viously reviewed and approved by the TDPUD, and approval of recommend-
ed mitigation measures described above, impacts associated with new water
infrastructure and impacts to existing water infrastructure would be less than
significant.
40 Bob Bena, Interim Fire Chief, Truckee Fire Protection District. Written
correspondence to Denyelle Nishimori, Associate, Town of Truckee, May 12, 2011.
41 Neil Kaufman, Water System Engineer, TDPUD. Email correspondence to
Denyelle Nishimori, Associate, Town of Truckee, August 25, 2011.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.15-15
d. Cumulative Impacts
The TDPUD’s planning for future water supply takes into account cumula-
tive demand within its entire service area. As noted above, there would be a
less than significant impact to water supply under buildout of the Truckee
2025 General Plan in combination with other projected growth. In the
UWMP and the WSMP, the TDPUD assessed future water demand for its
service area. The UWMP and the WSMP recommend the construction of
new wells or the expansion of water supply systems to meet future demand.
The Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) in the draft 2011 WSMP estimated
timeline and costs for future improvements from 2012 through 2032. If
adopted, the TDPUD will begin to implement the CIP. While the project
would contribute to an increased cumulative demand for water supply, long-
term demand, including the project, has been accounted for in TDPUD’s
long-term planning. Any construction or expansion of TDPUD’s facilities
included in the CIP would be subject to separate CEQA review, thereby
providing an opportunity to identify and mitigate associated environmental
impacts. Improvements to the TDPUD’s existing facilities would be funded
from the water facilities fees. Similar to the project, all new development
would be required to pay these fees at the time of connection to the water
system. Given that implementation of the project would cause less than signif-
icant impacts on water supply or the provision of water supply services, the
project would not result in or contribute to any cumulative impacts.
5. Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Project and cumulative impacts related to water supply and infrastructure
would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are warranted.
B. Wastewater
The following provides a description of wastewater service in the project area,
including applicable regulatory programs, existing wastewater services and
infrastructure, and supply and demand conditions within the project area.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.15-16
1. Regulatory Setting
This section describes the federal, State and local regulations that provide for
wastewater services in the United States and California.
a. Federal Regulations
i. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Wastewater discharge is regulated under the NPDES permit program for di-
rect discharges into receiving waters and by the National Pretreatment Pro-
gram for indirect discharges to a sewage treatment plant. Project site
wastewater is treated by Tahoe-Truckee Sanitation Agency, which has a per-
mit to discharge treated wastewater into the Truckee River corridor. The
Town of Truckee is permitted under the Waste Discharge Requirements for
Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4 permit 6A290712005,
Order No. 2003-0005-DWQ-02), which also serves as a NPDES Permit (No.
CAS000004) under the Federal Clean Water Act. Under the provisions of
this permit, the Town is required to implement the necessary legal authority
and implement appropriate procedures, to regulate the entry of pollutants
and non-stormwater discharges into the Town stormwater conveyance sys-
tem.42
b. State Regulations
i. Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act
In response to the deterioration of water quality of Lake Tahoe and the
Truckee River, the Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act was adopted
in the State of California in 1969. The Porter Cologne Act mandated that all
sewage be exported from the Tahoe Basin and all existing treatment facilities
be replaced. The Tahoe-Truckee Sanitation Agency was formed on May 1,
1972 to comply with this Act and provide sewage treatment for five collec-
tion districts. The five districts are the Tahoe City Public Utility District, the
North Tahoe Public Utility District, the Squaw Valley County Water Dis-
42 Truckee Municipal Code Chapter 11.01 Stormwater Quality.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.15-17
trict, the Alpine Springs County Water District, and the Truckee Sanitary
District, which provide sewage collection services for the Town of Truckee.43
ii. Sanitary District Act
As part of the California Health and Safety Code section 6400 et seq, the San-
itary District Act of 1923 was created with the purpose for any area in a
county, or in two or more counties within the same natural watershed area to
acquire, construct and operate garbage dumps and garbage disposal systems,
sewerage systems, drainage works, and water reclamation and distribution
systems.44
iii. Urban Water Management Plan
In accordance with the California Water Code 10610, also known as the Ur-
ban Water Management Planning Act (Act) of 1984, the TDPUD adopted an
Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) in June 2011. The Act states that
the UWMP must be updated every five years to identify short-term and long-
term water demand management in order to meet growing water demands
during normal, dry and multiple dry years. The 2011 UWMP provides in-
formation about TDPUD responsibilities towards water supply and water
recycling in the community including wastewater generation, collection,
treatment, and disposal.
iv. Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Plan
The Town is within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Lahontan Regional
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The Lahontan RWQCB develops
and enforces water quality objectives and implementation plans that safeguard
the quality of water resources in its region. In accordance with Section 13263
of the California Water Code, the RWQCBs are authorized to issue Waste
Discharge Requirements as well as periodically review self-monitoring reports
submitted by the discharger, and perform independent compliance checking,
43 Tahoe-Truckee Sanitation Agency, http://63.150.38.132/jsp/content.jsp?
menuid=53, accessed September 14, 2011.
44 California Health & Safety Code, Div. 6, Pt. 1, §§ 6400-6830: Derived from
1923:250:498. “Sanitary District Act of 1923.”
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.15-18
and take enforcement action if necessary. Chapter 4.4 of the Water Quality
Control Plan for the Lahontan Region, North and South Basins, outlines pol-
icies and regulations for municipal wastewater treatment, disposal, and recla-
mation. The standards contained within the Water Quality Control Plan
(WQCP) are designed to provide applicants with a uniform approach for the
design and installation of adequate systems to control wastewater and
wastewater treatment/sewage disposal impacts from the Town, and to pre-
vent any potential contamination of groundwater at the discharge site.
c. Local Regulations
i. Truckee Sanitary District Code
The Truckee Sanitary District Code (TSD) outlines policies, provisions, regu-
lations, fees, and charges related to service, installation, inspection, and
maintenance of sanitary sewer facilities.
ii. Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan
The Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan contains goals and policies related
to wastewater services in the Town. Relevant goals and policies are contained
in Table 4.15-2.
iii. Town of Truckee Municipal Code
Chapter 11.01 of the Town of Truckee Municipal Code includes provisions
related to wastewater discharge, which is described as the release, threatened
release, or placement of any material into the Town’s storm drain system or
receiving waters, including but not limited to stormwater, wastewater, solid
materials, liquids, hazardous waste, raw materials, debris, litter, or any other
substance.
2. Existing Setting
a. Tahoe-Truckee Sanitation Agency
The Tahoe-Truckee Sanitation Agency (T-TSA) The Tahoe-Truckee Sanita-
tion Agency (T-TSA) was founded in 1972 in response to the Porter Cologne
Water Quality Control Act, promulgated to protect Lake Tahoe and Truckee
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.15-19
TABLE 4.15-2 TOWN OF TRUCKEE GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES
RELEVANT TO WASTEWATER SERVICES
Policy or
Goal No. Goals and Policies
Goal LU-4 Coordinate land development with provision of services and infra-
structure.
LU-P4.1
Work with all special districts, including the Tahoe-Truckee
Unified School District, to ensure that development within the
Town is coordinated with provision of services.
LU-P4.2
Cooperate with special districts to plan for and identify suitable
future sites for needed facilities, including schools, fire stations,
solid and liquid waste disposal sites, and utilities infrastructure,
so that the local population can be safely and efficiently served,
while minimizing potential environmental impacts.
LU-P4.3
Approve rezoning and development permits only when ade-
quate services are available, or when a program to provide ser-
vices has been approved by the applicable District and the Town
of Truckee. Standards of services for new development applica-
ble to this policy are shown in Table LU-6.
Require that sewer be provided for all new residential subdivi-
sions creating more than four lots, and all new commercial and
industrial uses. Existing legal lots and new subdivisions of four
or fewer lots in areas currently without sewer may be developed
with residential uses using septic systems with the approval of
the appropriate health and environmental agencies.
Such lots may be required to establish connections to the sewer
system if they are located in close proximity to existing or fu-
ture sewer lines.
Source: Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan.
River water quality. In 1978 the T-TSA began operating the wastewater facil-
ity that serves five collection districts, including the Truckee Sanitary Dis-
trict. Collected sewage from the Town is conveyed to the T-TSA Water Rec-
lamation Plant (WRP), which is adjacent to the Truckee River and the
Truckee-Tahoe Airport. This tertiary treatment plant also receives effluent
from the North Tahoe Public Utility District, the Tahoe City Public Utility
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.15-20
District, the Alpine Springs County Water District, and the Squaw Valley
Public Service District.
The T-TSA WRP is sized primarily to treat the maximum sewage flows that
occur during summer periods with the influx of seasonal residents and visi-
tors. Currently, the T-TSA WRP has a capacity of 9.6 million gallons per day
(mgd),45 which is adequate to meet projected buildout demands of the service
area in 2025.46
Sanitary wastewater treatment requirements are established in the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit issued by the
RWQCB. The permit also sets out a framework for compliance and en-
forcement. The T-TSA implements and enforces a pretreatment program for
effluent discharged into the WRP. The facility is currently in compliance
with the water quality requirements of RWQCB for the protection of the
environmentally sensitive Lake Tahoe and Truckee River Corridor.
b. Truckee Sanitary District (TSD)
The Town is serviced by the Truckee Sanitary District (TSD), which is one of
five service members of the T-TSA as described above. The TSD currently
operates under the Sanitary District Act of 1923. Untreated sewage is piped
from the TSD service area to the T-TSA WRA using gravity flow and lift
stations. The TSD services an area of approximately 38-square miles through
the operation and maintenance of a wastewater collection system that in-
cludes over 300 miles of sewer gravity flow pipelines and nine lift stations.
Currently, there are approximately 9,764 dwelling unit equivalents (DUE,
defined as a single family dwelling containing 2.3 occupants, contributing 100
gallons per occupant per day to the wastewater collection system) and 840
45 Tahoe-Truckee Sanitation Agency website, http://12.153.217.197/ttsa/jsp/
content.jsp?menuid=1, accessed November 1, 2011.
46 Town of Truckee, 2006. 2025 General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Re-
port, Chapter 4.13.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.15-21
commercial accounts discharging into TSD's wastewater collection system.47
New residential developments are required to install six inch main sewer lines
and four inch lateral services lines.
3. Standards of Significance
The proposed project would have a significant impact with regard to
wastewater if it would:
¤ Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board.
¤ Require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facili-
ties or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects.
¤ Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing com-
mitments.
4. Impact Discussion
a. Exceed RWQCB Wastewater Treatment Requirements
The project, a residential development, would not involve industrial activities
that are likely to substantially increase pollutant loading levels in the sanitary
sewer system. As previously stated, the RWQCB enforces waste discharge
requirements for the TSD service area and T-TSA WRA. The project site is
not served by a private on-site wastewater treatment system, but instead
would convey wastewater via municipal sewage infrastructure maintained by
TSD and T-TSA. The T-TSA WRA is a public facility and therefore, is sub-
ject to the State’s wastewater treatment requirements. Consequently,
wastewater from the project site is, and would continue to be, treated accord-
ing to the wastewater treatment requirements enforced by the RWQCB.
47 Truckee Sanitary District, http://www.truckeesan.org/home/
index.php?site_config_id=109&page_selection=2331&s_page=, accessed on Novem-
ber 1, 2011.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.15-22
Therefore, the buildout of the project would not exceed wastewater treatment
requirements, and impacts to sanitary wastewater quality would be less than
significant.
b. Wastewater Capacity
Implementation of the proposed project would generate additional
wastewater flows that would be treated at the T-TSA WRP. Based on the
TSD’s residential design flow, 230 gpd per residential unit,48 the proposed
project would generate approximately 42,550 gpd (or 0.04 mpd).49 Implemen-
tation of the proposed project would contribute approximately four percent
to the treatment facility. The WRP’s current capacity of 9.6 mgd is adequate
to meet the projected buildout demands of the proposed project. Therefore,
the project would not require any off-site expansions or new construction of
wastewater treatment facilities because the anticipated wastewater generation
would be within the capacity of the existing TSD wastewater treatment plant.
As illustrated on Figure 3-10 in Chapter 3 of this Draft EIR, the project
would install four-inch and six-inch sewer pipelines to connect to exiting TSD
infrastructure. In addition, the project would utilize one primary gravity
sewer outfall to the northwest of the project site. The project is required to
pay sewer connection charges, which the TSD applies to requisite system im-
provements to accommodate incremental growth, as needed. The proposed
project would require paying connection fees to the T-TSA of $5,000 per res-
idential unit.50 In addition, all plans would be subject to the review and ap-
proval of the TSD prior project construction. Therefore, less-than-significant
impacts related to wastewater treatment would occur.
48 TSD Ordinance I-2008, Appendix A-6, http://www.truckeesan.org/pix/
21212011783.pdf, accessed on November 1, 2011.
49 230 gpd x 185 residential units = 42,550 gpd.
50 Tahoe-Truckee Sanitation Agency website, http://12.153.217.197/ttsa/jsp/
content.jsp?menuid=40, accessed on November 1, 2011.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.15-23
c. Cumulative Impacts
This section analyzes potential impacts to sanitary wastewater that could oc-
cur from the project with Town buildout identified in the 2025 General Plan
and reasonably foreseeable projects in the TSD service area. This analysis
only takes into account Town’s buildout projections because, as noted in
Chapter 4, Environmental Evaluation, of this Draft EIR, there is no foreseea-
ble project in the surrounding area.
The project, in conjunction with the buildout projections identified in the
2025 General Plan, would cumulatively increase the demand for wastewater
infrastructure and treatment capacity in the TSD service area, and would like-
ly result in the need for the TSD to construct additional facilities, which
could result in additional environmental impacts. However, this future
growth is projected in the 2025 General Plan and according to the Draft En-
vironmental Impact Report for the 2025 General Plan the TSD’s current facil-
ities are capable of the projected growth. Therefore, the cumulative impacts
would be less than significant.
5. Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Project and cumulative impacts related to wastewater treatments would be less
than significant and no mitigation measures are warranted.
C. Solid Waste
1. Regulatory Setting
a. State Regulations
i. California Integrated Waste Management Act
California’s Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (Assembly Bill [AB]
939 and amended by SB 1016) set a requirement for cities and counties
throughout the State to divert 50 percent of all solid waste from landfills by
January 1, 2000 though source reduction, recycling, and composting. To help
achieve this, the Act requires that each city and county prepare and submit a
Source Reduction and Recycling Element. AB 939 also established the goal
for all California counties to provide at least 15 years of on-going landfill ca-
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.15-24
pacity. As part of California Integrated Waste Management Board
(CIWMB)’s Zero Waste Campaign, regulations affect what common house-
hold items can be placed in the trash. As of February 2006, household mate-
rials including fluorescent lamps and tubes, batteries, electronic devices, and
thermostats that contain mercury are no longer permitted in the trash.51
In 2007, SB 1016 amended AB 939 to establish a per capita disposal measure-
ment system. The per capita disposal measurement system is based on two
factors: a jurisdiction’s reported total disposal of solid waste divided by a ju-
risdiction’s population. CIWMB sets a target per capita disposal rate for each
jurisdiction. Each jurisdiction must submit an annual report to CIWMB with
an update of its progress in implementing diversion programs and it’s current
per capital disposal rate.52 In 2010, the Town of Truckee’s disposal rate was
5.6 pounds per person per day, which was well below the target rate of 10.7
pounds per person per day.53
b. Local Regulations
i. Citizens Waste Management Advisory Committee
The Town of Truckee established the Citizens Waste Management Advisory
Committee (CWMAC) in January of 1999 to serve in an advisory role to help
Truckee meet the State-mandated 50 percent recycling goal by the year 2000.
The committee is comprised of thirteen local residents and the Assistant to
the Town Manager and works with the Town’s hauler to promote recycling,
source reduction, reuse, composting, used oil recycling and the proper use,
storage and disposal of household hazardous waste to the people of Truckee.
The Committee helps implement the “Keep Truckee Green” program, which
51 California Integrated Waste Management Board’s Zero Waste Campaign’s
website, http://www.zerowaste.ca.gov, accessed on November 1, 2011.
52 California Integrated Waste Management Board, http://www.calrecycle.
ca.gov/LGCentral/Basics/PerCapitaDsp.htm#Jurisdiction, accessed on November 1,
2011.
53 CalRecycle, On-line Disposal Rate Calculator, http://www.
calrecycle.ca.gov/, accessed on December 1, 2011.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.15-25
keeps up to date on the California Integrated Waste Management Board’s
Zero Waste Campaign.54
ii. Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan
The Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan contains goals and policies related
to solid waste services in the Town. Relevant goals and policies are contained
in Table 4.15-3.
iii. Town of Truckee Municipal Code
Ordinance No. 2003-02, Title 6, Health and Sanitation, provides for the rules
and regulations governing the collection, handling, and disposal of solid waste
and other operating regulations, such as charges and fees.55
iv. Town of Truckee Construction and Demolition Waste Reduction Program
The Town offers a Construction and Demolition Waste Reduction Program
along with other waste prevention and recycling programs in order to reduce
waste and save money. Through the program, the Town regulates the appli-
cable diversion percentage of each item and charges for disposal per cubic
yard.56
2. Existing Setting
a. Removal and Recycling
Solid waste removal and recycling services for the Town of Truckee are pro-
vided by the Tahoe-Truckee Sierra Disposal (TTSD) Company. Two sepa-
rate bodies make up the TTSD: Tahoe Truckee Disposal and the Eastern Re-
gional Landfill Material Recovery Facility (MRF). Tahoe Truckee Disposal is
54 Town of Truckee, http://www.townoftruckee.com/, accessed December 1,
2011.
55 Town of Truckee, Title 6, Health and Sanitation, http://www.townof
truckee.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=269, accessed on Novem-
ber 1, 2011.
56 Town of Truckee website, http://townoftruckee.com/index.aspx?page=226,
accessed on December 15, 2011.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.15-26
TABLE 4.15-3 TOWN OF TRUCKEE GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES
RELEVANT TO SOLID WASTE SERVICES
Policy or
Goal No. Goals and Policies
Goal LU-4 Coordinate land development with provision of services and infrastruc-
ture.
LU-P4.2
Cooperate with special districts to plan for and identify suitable fu-
ture sites for needed facilities, including schools, fire stations, solid
and liquid waste disposal sites, and utilities infrastructure, so that the
local population can be safely and efficiently served, while minimiz-
ing potential environmental impacts.
Goal SAF-5 Protect the community from the harmful effects of hazardous materials.
SAF-P5.1
Continue to coordinate with the Nevada County Environmental
Health Department in the review of all projects which require the
use, storage, or transport of hazardous waste to ensure necessary
measures are taken to protect public health and safety.
SAF-P5.2 Continue to cooperate with Tahoe Truckee Sierra Disposal to facili-
tate opportunities for safe disposal of household hazardous waste.
Goal COS-15 Encourage conservation of energy and fuel resources, strive to reduce
generation of solid waste, and promote environmental sustainability.
COS-P15.1 Support recycling programs town-wide, including the curbside recy-
cling and business waste reduction programs.
COS-P15.2
Support and expand innovative programs such as the “Keep Truckee
Green” Community Awards that recognize local businesses, agencies,
and organizations efforts to reduce waste.
COS-P15.3 Encourage energy conservation, waste reduction and environmental
sustainability in all Town activities.
COS-P15.7
Support efforts to develop a regional food waste recycling
program in Truckee, in cooperation with Nevada County,
Placer County, Special Districts, and local resorts and ski areas.
Source: Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan.
responsible for collecting household waste and recyclables and the MRF is a
recycling and transfer center for household and construction materials. In-
coming solid waste is either recycled or transported to the Lockwood Re-
gional Landfill as described below.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.15-27
Tahoe Truckee Disposal (TTD) is a collection division of the TTSD and op-
erates close to 40 vehicles to collect waste. TTD uses a combination of rear
mounting bin pick up trucks for single-family residences and low-density are-
as, and front loader garbage trucks for commercial and multi-family areas.
Funding for solid waste collection comes from collection fees.
The TTSD handles approximately 60,000 tons of waste per year and is operat-
ing at 50 percent of their total capacity of 120,000 tons per year. The TTSD
plans on continuing to expand their services to accommodate the growth and
increasing needs of their service area.57
b. Landfill
The Landfill is located on a 1350-acre site in Storey County, Nevada, approx-
imately 10 miles east of Reno, Nevada and approximately 1.5 miles southeast
of Lockwood, Nevada. The 550-acre landfill footprint receives an average of
2,200 tons per working day (tpd). The Landfill’s proposed development,
which would add a 350-acre disposal area in the site, would yield an overall
refuse storage volume of approximately 64.8 million compacted cubic yards
(43.7 million compacted tons).58 Additionally, this 1,535-acre site has a 60-
year capacity to accommodate the buildout projections for the TTSD’s ser-
vice area.59 Currently, the TTSD is in its ninth year of an 80-year contract for
disposal services at the landfill, which began in 1997.60
3. Standards of Significance
The proposed project would have a significant impact with regard to solid
waste if it would:
57 Truckee 2025 General Plan EIR, Chapter 4.13, Utilities and Service Systems.
58 Nevada Division of Environmental Protection website, http://ndep.nv.gov/
bwm/landfill_lockwood.htm, accessed on November 1, 2011.
59 Truckee 2025 General Plan EIR, Chapter 4.13, Utilities and Service Systems.
60 Pacific Municipal Consultants, 2002. Old Greenwood Planned Development
Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2001102077).
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.15-28
¤ Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate
the project’s solid waste disposal needs.
¤ Comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to
solid waste.
4. Impact Discussion
a. Insufficient Landfill Capacity
As described above, the Lockwood Regional Landfill has a 60-year capacity to
accommodate the future growth in the TTSD’s service area.61 Since there is
adequate long-term capacity at the landfill serving the Town, there would be a
less-than-significant impact with regard to solid waste.
b. Compliance with Solid Waste Statues and Regulations
As stated previously, the Town continues to meet the 2025 General Plan’s 70
percent recycling goal, as well as the State-mandated disposal rate. The Town
of Truckee 2025 General Plan includes policies to encourage recycling and
waste diversion to minimize the amount of solid waste generated by residents
and businesses. Implementation of strategies and programs allowed the Town
to meet the State mandated waste diversion rate of 10.7 pounds per person per
day in 2010.62,63 These programs are sufficient to ensure that future develop-
ment in Town would not compromise the ability to meet or perform better
than the mandated target. Additionally, construction and demolition associ-
ated with the proposed project would generate significant solid waste. At
least 35 percent of this waste would be expected to be diverted from landfill
disposal by recycling in accordance with the Town’s construction and demo-
lition waste reduction program. Therefore, the proposed project would com-
61 Truckee 2025 General Plan EIR, Chapter 4.13, Utilities and Service Systems..
62 CalRecycle, On-line Disposal Rate Calculator, http://www.calrecycle.
ca.gov/, accessed on November 1, 2011.
63 Since 2007, the 50 percent diversion requirement has been measured in
terms of per-capita disposal expressed as pounds per person per day. Therefore the
calculated diversion percentage is not available since 2007. However given that the
Town’s actual disposal rate was well below the target rate, the Town’s 70 percent di-
version goal is considered to be satisfied in 2010.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.15-29
ply with applicable statutes and regulations and the impact would be less than
significant.
c. Cumulative Impacts
This section analyzes potential impacts to solid waste services that could oc-
cur from the project with Town buildout identified in the 2025 General Plan
and reasonably foreseeable projects in the TTSD service area. This analysis
only takes into account Town’s buildout projections because, as noted in
Chapter 4 of this Draft EIR, there is no foreseeable project in Truckee.
The project, in conjunction with the buildout projections identified in the
2025 General Plan, would cumulatively increase the demand for solid waste
infrastructure and treatment capacity in the TTSD service area, and would
likely result in the need for the TTSD to construct additional facilities, which
could result in additional environmental impacts. However, this future
growth is projected in the 2025 General Plan and according to the Draft En-
vironmental Impact Report for the 2025 General Plan the TTSD’s current
facilities are capable of the projected growth. Furthermore, as described
above, the Lockwood Regional Landfill has a 60-year capacity to accommo-
date the future growth in the TTSD’s service area.64 Therefore, the cumula-
tive impacts would be less than significant.
5. Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Project and cumulative impacts related to solid waste services would be less
than significant and no mitigation measures are required.
D. Energy Conservation
In order to assure that energy implications are considered in project decisions,
the State CEQA Guidelines, (Appendix F) requires that EIRs include a discus-
sion of the potential energy impacts of proposed projects, with particular em-
phasis on avoiding or reducing inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary con-
64 Truckee 2025 General Plan EIR, Chapter 4.13, Utilities and Service Systems.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.15-30
sumption of energy. However, no specific thresholds of significance for po-
tential energy impacts are suggested in the State CEQA Guidelines. This sec-
tion provides a general description of the regulatory setting addressing exist-
ing electric and natural gas services and infrastructure, and supply and de-
mand in the Town.
1. Regulatory Setting
This section describes the federal, State and local regulations that provide for
protection and management of water resources and services in the United
States and California. The development of the proposed project would be
required to adhere to all applicable federal, State, and local statues and regula-
tions related to construction and operation.
a. Federal Regulations
There are no federal regulations regarding electric and natural gas services that
are applicable to the proposed project.
b. State Regulations
i. California Building Standards Code – Title 24
California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24, is also known as the Califor-
nia Building Standards Code. The 2010 triennial edition of the California
Building Standards Code applies to all occupancies that applied for a building
permit on or after January 1, 2011, and remains in effect until the effective
date of the 2013 triennial edition.65
a) 2010 California Building Code
The 2010 California Building Code (CBC) is included in Title 24, Part 2 of
the California Building Standards Code. Under State law, all building stand-
ards must be centralized in Title 24 or they are not enforceable. Through the
CBC, the State provides a minimum standard for building design and con-
struction.
65 California Building Standards Commission website, http://www.bsc.ca.gov/
title_24/t24_2010tried.htm, retrieved September 7, 2011.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.15-31
b) Building Energy Efficiency Standards
Energy consumption, including electricity, by new buildings in California is
regulated by the State Building Energy Efficiency Standards, embodied in
Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations. The efficiency stand-
ards apply to new construction of both residential and non-residential build-
ings, and regulate energy consumed for heating, cooling, ventilation, water
heating, and lighting. The building efficiency standards are enforced through
the local building permit process. Local government agencies may adopt and
enforce energy standards for new buildings, provided that these standards
meet or exceed those provided in Title 24 guidelines. Appling the most cur-
rent standards for low-rise single-family detached homes, electricity use is
reduced by 22.7 percent compared to the 2005 Standards, peak demand is re-
duced by 8.2 percent, and gas is reduced by 10 percent.66
c) 2010 California Green Building Standards (CALGreen) Code
The California Green Building Standards are embodied in the California
Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11 and include mandatory provisions ef-
fective on January 1, 2011. The purpose of this code is to improve public
health, safety, and general welfare by enhancing the design and construction
of buildings through the use of building concepts having a reduced negative
impact or positive environmental impact and encouraging sustainable con-
struction practices in the following categories:
1. Planning and design
2. Energy efficiency
3. Water efficiency and conservation
4. Material conservation and resource efficiency
5. Environmental quality
The provisions of this code apply to the planning, design, operation, con-
struction, use, and occupancy of every newly constructed building or struc-
ture, unless otherwise indicated in this code, throughout the State of Califor-
66 Architectural Energy Corporation, 2007. Impact Analysis for 2008 Energy Ef-
ficiency Standards, page 2.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.15-32
nia. Compliance with the CalGreen Code is not a substitution for meeting
the certification requirements of any green building program.
c. Local Regulations
i. Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan
The Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan contains goals and policies related
to energy conservation in the Town. Relevant goals and policies are con-
tained in Table 4.15-6.
2. Existing Setting
Southwest Gas would provide natural gas to the proposed project site and
electrical power would be supplied by Liberty Energy – California Pacific
Electric Company. Southwest Gas more than 1.8 million customers in Ari-
zona, Nevada and portions of California, and added 13,000 customers in 2010.
Liberty Energy provides electrical power services to the communities of
Coleville, Floriston, Loyalton, Markleeville, North Lake Tahoe, West Lake
Tahoe, Portola, South Lake Tahoe, Topaz Lake, Truckee, Verdi, Walker, and
Woodfords. Liberty Energy provides electrical power services to the com-
munities of Coleville, Floriston, Loyalton, Markleeville, North Lake Tahoe,
West Lake Tahoe, Portola, South Lake Tahoe, Topaz Lake, Truckee, Verdi,
Walker, and Woodfords.
3. Impact Discussion
The development of the proposed project would be required to adhere to all
applicable federal, State, and local statues and regulations related to construc-
tion and operation. In addition to the meeting the conventional Title 24
standards, the proposed project would apply environmentally sustainable
standards for demolition, construction, and operation.
As described in Chapter 3 of this Draft EIR, Draft Design Guidelines have
been developed for the project to reduce energy and water consumption. The
Draft Design Guidelines propose energy efficient green building standards
such as southern exposure and tree canopy shading, solar panels, radiant heat-
ing systems, and installation of energy star appliances and windows.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.15-33
TABLE 4.15-6 TOWN OF TRUCKEE GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES
RELEVANT TO ENERGY
Policy or
Goal No. Goals and Policies
Goal COS-5
Encourage conservation of energy and fuel resources, strive to
reduce generation of solid waste, and promote environmental
sustainability.
COS-P5.3 Encourage energy conservation, waste reduction, and environ-
mental sustainability in all Town activities.
COS-P5.4
Work with energy providers to encourage community-wide
reductions in energy consumption through conservation prac-
tices.
COS-P5.5
Encourage new private and public development to maximize
opportunities for use of passive or natural heating and cooling
and encourage sites with solar opportunities to be designed with
natural heating and cooling principles.
Source: Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan.
Additionally the landscaping has been designed to deflect wind, moderate
heat impacts, reduce soil erosion, and conserve water. The landscaping pro-
posed in the Draft Design Guidelines applies the use of native, sustainable
landscaping indigenous to the Truckee region to reduce the amount of irriga-
tion required. Implementation of these features would be enforced through
the General Plan Policies COS-P5.3 and COS-P5.5. Therefore it is anticipat-
ed that the net increase in natural gas use, electricity use, and water use would
be reduced by these features.
As discussed in Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of this Draft EIR,
buildings represent 39 percent of United States primary energy use and 70
percent of electricity consumption.67 Accordingly, implementation of the
proposed project is anticipated to increase the use of electricity and natural
gas. However, the project would not result in a substantial increase in natural
gas, electrical service demands, and would not require new energy supply fa-
cilities and distribution infrastructure or capacity enhancing alterations to
67 United States Department of Energy, 2003. Buildings Energy Data Book.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.15-34
existing facilities. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no
mitigation measures are required.
4. Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Project and cumulative impacts related to energy would be less than significant
and no mitigation measures are warranted.
5 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-1
A. Introduction
The State CEQA Guidelines require that EIRs include the identification and
evaluation of a reasonable range of alternatives that are designed to reduce the
significant environmental impacts of the project while still meeting the gen-
eral project objectives. The State CEQA Guidelines also set forth the intent
and extent of alternatives analysis to be provided in an EIR. Those considera-
tions are discussed below.
B. Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Section 15126.6(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines states: “An EIR shall de-
scribe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of
the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the
project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of
the project, and evaluate the comparable merits of the alternatives. An EIR
need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must
consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster
informed decision-making and public participation. An EIR is not required
to consider alternatives which are infeasible. The lead agency is responsible
for selecting a range of project alternatives for examination and must publicly
disclose it’s reasoning for selecting those alternatives. There is no ironclad
rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other
than the rule of reason.”
1. Purpose
The alternatives evaluated in this EIR were developed with the intent of
avoiding or lessening significant effects of the project as identified in Chapter
4 of this Draft EIR and listed below.
2. Potentially Significant Project Impacts
The project impacts that would be less than significant with mitigation in-
clude the following:
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-2
¤ Air Quality – conflict with the goals and policies of the Town of Truck-
ee’s Particulate Matter AQMP, construction PM10 levels, Northern Sierra
Air Quality Management District’s Level B threshold for PM10 levels.
¤ Biological Resources – Sierra Nevada red foxes, nesting birds, and roost-
ing bats.
¤ Cultural Resources – archaeological resources and paleontological re-
sources.
¤ Geology and Soils – rupture of a known earthquake fault, landslides,
loss of topsoil and soil erosion, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse.
¤ Hazards and Hazardous Materials – wildland fires.
¤ Hydrology and Water Quality – reduce water quality through sedimen-
tation of on-site and off-site watercourses and urban runoff.
¤ Traffic and Circulation – increased vehicular delays during the AM and
PM peak hours, exceeding roadway capacity, construction trip genera-
tion, and roadway design hazards.
All other impacts were found to be less than significant without mitigation.
3. Project Objectives
The objectives of the proposed project are as follows:
¤ Create a residential community compatible with adjacent neighborhoods
in the Town and Nevada County;
¤ Provide additional affordable housing in the Town;
¤ Provide low impact recreational opportunities (i.e. trails, trailheads, in-
formal parking areas, information/interpretive kiosks, and direction-
al/way finding signage) for future residents, surrounding neighbors and
the public;
¤ Protect open space areas that serve as native habitat and wildlife corri-
dors;
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-3
¤ Cluster development, and enhance and improve the existing on-site in-
formal trail network to avoid environmentally sensitive areas;
¤ Complement the natural forest setting through project design and land-
scaping; and
¤ Achieve sustainable aspects of construction through green building prac-
tices.
4. Alternatives Considered and Rejected as Being Infeasible
As described above, Section 15126.6(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires
EIRs to identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but
were rejected as infeasible during the scoping process, and briefly explain the
reasons underlying the lead agency’s determination. The following is a dis-
cussion of alternatives that were considered and rejected, along with the rea-
sons they are not included in the analysis.
a. Off-Site Analysis
An alternate site with the same General Plan Land Use and Town Zoning
designation of a size to accommodate 185 single-family residential was not
found within the Town limit; therefore, an off-site alternative was determined
to be infeasible. Additionally, an off-site alternative would not meet the pro-
ject objectives and would not necessarily reduce the potentially significant
impacts associated with the proposed project.
b. Alternate Land Use
Alternative land uses, such as open space/non-motorized recreational, com-
mercial, or institutional uses, were also rejected as being infeasible because
they are not allowed under the General Plan Land Use and Town Zoning
designations for the site. In addition alternate land uses would not meet the
project objectives.
c. Higher Density Alternative
While it is not an infeasible alternative, an alternative to develop the allowed
213 lots was not analyzed. This alternative could increase the project’s im-
pacts as the increase of 28 lots over the proposed project could increase trip
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-4
generation impacts as well as the demand for public services and utilities.
Therefore, this proposal would not meet the intent of the alternatives analysis
under CEQA, which evaluated alternatives that would reduce the significant
environmental impacts of the project while still meeting the general project
objectives.
d. Rural Residential Alternative
An alternative considering development on the project site applying the Gen-
eral Plan Land Use designation standards for Residential Cluster – 5 acres
(RC-5) and Rural Residential (RR) zoning district standards was considered.
Under this proposal 42 lots would be permitted on 213 acres of the project
site designated for residential development, which represents a 77-percent
reduction in the number of residential lots on the site. However, this alterna-
tive was considered infeasible as it would increase the private development
area by 49 percent from the proposed project (107.29 acres compared to 213
acres) and would reduce the public open space from 176.17 acres to 70.76
acres. In addition, this proposal would not achieve a minimum density of at
least 50 percent of the maximum allowed density under current zoning.
e. No Open Space Crossing
An alternative similar to Alternative C, but with no bridge over the main
drainage, was considered. Under Alternative C, the proposed roadway that
connects the eastern and western sides of the project over the main drainage
through the open space area would be gated and restricted to use by emergen-
cy vehicles only. In contrast, under this alternative considered there would
no connection between the two groupings of homes. Similar to Alternative
C, public access to the development would be from Edinburgh drive on the
west and Martis Peak Road on the north. Unlike Alternative C, emergency
response vehicles would not be able to cross the main drainage between the
two groupings of homes. It is not considered to be acceptable for the fire
department to only have one entrance to each of the groupings of homes.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-5
5. Overview of Selected Alternatives
The alternatives to be analyzed in comparison to the proposed project in-
clude:
¤ Alternative A: No Project
¤ Alternative B: Edinburgh Drive Open Access (185 lots)
¤ Alternative C: No Open Space Crossing (185 lots)
¤ Alternative D: Medium Density Cluster (185 lots)
¤ Alternative E: Reduced Density (88 lots)
These alternatives were selected because of their potential to reduce the signif-
icant-but-mitigable impacts of the proposed project. A discussion of each of
the selected alternatives is provided below.
Table 5-1 summarizes the comparative impacts of each of the alternatives
compared to the project.
a. Assumptions and Methodology
The anticipated means for implementation of the alternatives can influence
the assessment and/or probability of impacts for those alternatives. For ex-
ample, a project may have the potential to generate significant impacts, but
considerations in project design may also afford the opportunity to avoid or
reduce such impacts. The alternatives analysis is presented as a comparative
analysis to the proposed project and assumes that all applicable mitigation
measures proposed for the project would apply to each alternative. Impacts
associated with the alternatives are compared to project-related impacts and
are classified as greater, less, or essentially similar to (or comparable to) the
level of impacts associated with the proposed project.
The following analysis compares the potential significant environmental im-
pacts of five alternatives with those of the proposed project for each of the
environmental topics analyzed in detail in Chapter 4 of this Draft EIR.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-6
TABLE 5-1 ALTERNATIVES IMPACTS COMPARISONS
Impact Area
EIR
Proposed
Project
Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E
No Project
Edinburgh
Drive Access
(185 lots)
No Open Space
Crossing
(185 lots)
Medium
Density Cluster
(185 lots)
Reduced Density
(88 lots)
Aesthetics LTS ++ = + + +
Agricultural and Forestry Resources LTS ++ = + + +
Air Quality LTS/M ++ + + + +
Biological Resources LTS/M ++ = + + +
Cultural Resources LTS/M + = = = +
Geology, Soils and Seismicity LTS/M ++ = = = =
Greenhouse Gas Emissions LTS/M ++ + + = +
Hazards and Hazardous Materials LTS/M + = = = =
Hydrology and Water Quality LTS/M ++ = = + +
Land Use and Planning LTS = = = = - -
Noise LTS ++ - - = +
Population and Housing LTS = = = = =
Public Services and Recreation LTS + = = = +
Transportation and Traffic LTS/M ++ = = = +
Utilities and Service Systems LTS ++ = = = =
++
+
=
-
- -
Substantial improvement compared to the proposed project.
Slight improvement compared to the proposed project.
Similar to the proposed project.
Slight deterioration compared to the proposed project.
Substantial deterioration compared to the proposed project.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-7
C. Alternative A: No Project
1. Description
As required by CEQA, this subsection analyzes a “No Project” Alternative
(Alternative A) and describes the effects of taking no action or not receiving
project approval. Under Alternative A, the proposed project would not be
constructed, and the project site would remain in its current condition. The
potential environmental impacts associated with Alternative A are described
below and are compared to the proposed project.
2. Impact Discussion
a. Aesthetics
Under Alternative A, no grading, tree and vegetation removal, or new devel-
opment would occur on the project site and the existing aesthetic characteris-
tics would remain unchanged. There would be no changes to the visual char-
acter and no new sources of light and glare on the site. Therefore, this alter-
native would eliminate the aesthetic impacts associated with the proposed
project. Overall aesthetics impacts under this alternative would be less than
those of the proposed project since no development would occur on the site.
b. Agricultural and Forestry Resources
Similar to the proposed project, no agricultural lands would be impacted by
development on the project site. Therefore, agricultural impacts would be
the same as those of the proposed project. However, as no trees would be
removed under this alternative, impacts to forestry resources would be less
than those under the project.
c. Air Quality
Project-generated fugitive dust and other pollutant emissions associated with
construction activities at the site would not occur under this alternative;
thereby, eliminating the project’s significant-but-mitigable air quality impacts.
Under Alternative A, pollutant emissions associated with vehicle trips would
not occur and emissions associated with residential development would not
occur. Overall impacts to air quality would be less than that of the proposed
project.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-8
d. Biological Resources
Under this alternative the potential to modify habitat for any special-status
species identified would not occur. There would be no impact on any ripari-
an habitat or other sensitive natural communities and no modifications to any
federally protected wetlands would occur. Alternative A would not interfere
or remove access to a migratory wildlife corridor or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites and would not be inconsistent with local regulations
pertaining to biological resources or conservation plans. Overall impacts to
biological resources would be less than those of the proposed project under
Alternative A because no development on the project site would occur.
e. Cultural Resources
Under Alternative A, no ground-disturbing activities would occur. There-
fore, this alternative would not have the potential to damage or destroy
known and unknown archaeological resources or unknown paleontological
resources and human remains. However, under this alternative the known
cultural resource sites within the Town’s OS Zoning District (Open Space)
areas would not be permanently reserved under the protective conservation
easement or dedication to the Town of Truckee/Truckee Donner Land Trust
that is included as part of the proposed project. Since implementation of the
project would disturb land area, impacts to cultural resources would be less
under this alternative.
f. Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
Under Alternative A, no new development would occur on the site, which
reduces the potential for damage from soil/geologic conditions (i.e. seismicity
and ground shaking; flooding; liquefaction, lateral spreading; geologic and soil
instabilities; soil erosion/loss of topsoil; expansive and corrosive soils; and
groundwater). Therefore, overall impacts would be less under Alternative A.
g. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Under Alternative A, no new development would occur on the site. There-
fore, this alternative would eliminate impacts related to a net increase in
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and overall impacts would be less.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-9
h. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Under Alternative A, no new development would occur on the site. There-
fore, this alternative would eliminate impacts related to introducing a residen-
tial development in an area with a high risk of wildfire hazards. However,
the project site would remain an area of high wildfire risk.
i. Hydrology and Water Quality
This alternative would eliminate water quality impacts. However, the exist-
ing areas of erosion within the ephemeral drainages would continue to occur.
Nonetheless, under Alternative A, impacts to hydrology and water quality
would be less than those under the proposed project.
j. Land Use and Planning
Because Alternative A would not involve any new development the site
would remain in its current condition. There are no land use conflicts under
the proposed project and current conditions, with the exception of unauthor-
ized use of the site for recreational activities. Similar to the proposed project,
Alternative A would meet the intent of the General Plan RC/OS (Resource
Conservation/Open Space) and Town’s OS Zoning District (Open Space) as
no development is permitted on this portion of the project site. Therefore,
under Alternative A, impacts would be the same as those of the proposed
project.
k. Noise
Because Alternative A would not involve any short-term noise from con-
struction nor long-term project noise from project operation, this alternative
would eliminate the project’s less-than-significant construction and long-term
operational noise impacts. Therefore, noise impacts under Alternative A
would be less than those of the proposed project.
l. Population and Housing
A would result in no residential uses on the project site. Alternative A would
not achieve a minimum density of at least 50 percent of the maximum al-
lowed density and Alternative A would not provide affordable housing.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-10
However, neither Alternative A nor the proposed project would displace sub-
stantial numbers of existing housing or people, and would not induce unantic-
ipated growth in the Town. As such, overall impacts to population and hous-
ing would be the similar to those of the proposed project.
m. Public Services (Fire, Police, Schools, and Parks) and Recreation
Alternative A would result in no new development of the project site and
would not change the type and frequency of fire and police protection ser-
vices required. Alternative A would not directly contribute any school-aged
children to the Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District. Alternative A would
not generate the greatest users of parks and recreational facilities (families
with children); therefore, impacts to schools and parks would be less than the
proposed project. Overall impacts to public services would be less than those
of the proposed project.
While the proposed project features that would increase the permitted and
lawful recreational opportunities in the Town (i.e. 4.5-mile publicly accessible
trail system and recreation center) would not be included under Alternative A
and the 176.17 acres of open space that would be permanently reserved by
protective conservation easement or dedication to the Town of Truck-
ee/Truckee Donner Land Trust would not occur under Alternative A, the
introduction of new users of recreational amenities in the Town and sur-
rounding area would not occur; therefore, overall impacts to recreation
would be less than that of the proposed project.
n. Transportation and Traffic
Under Alternative A, no new development on the site would occur. As such,
no new traffic trips would be generated and no traffic impacts as a result of
development on the project site would occur. Overall impacts to transporta-
tion and traffic would be less than those of the proposed project.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-11
o. Utilities and Service Systems (Sewer, Water, Solid Waste, Natural Gas
and Electricity)
Under Alternative A, no new development on the project site would occur
and there would be no changes to demand for sewer, water supply, solid
waste disposal services, natural gas, or electricity. Therefore, impacts to these
utilities and service systems would be less than those of the proposed project.
3. Relationship of the Alternative to the Objectives
Under Alternative A, the proposed project would not be constructed and
therefore this alternative does not meet any of the project objectives.
D. Alternative B: Edinburgh Drive Open Access (185 Lots)
1. Description
Alternative B would be essentially the same as the proposed project with the
exception of providing open, unrestricted access to the site from Edinburgh
Drive, west of the project. With the Edinburgh Drive access open, this alter-
native is expected to result in an increase of vehicular trips on the local road-
ways in the Glenshire subdivision, including Edinburgh Drive, Somerset
Drive, Courtenay Lane, Regency Circle, Rolands Way, Dorchester Drive,
Wellington Way, Oxford Circle, Canterbury Lane, and Wiltshire Lane.
Based on the layout of the site, it is assumed that 85 percent of trips made
to/from points west of Glenshire would use the Edinburgh Drive access, and
the remaining 15 percent of these trips would use Martis Peak Road. All oth-
er aspects of the project would be the same as those described in Chapter 3,
Project Description, of this Draft EIR. A site plan of this alternative is shown
in Figure 5-1.
2. Impact Discussion
a. Aesthetics
Under Alternative B, grading, tree and vegetation removal and new develop-
ment with landscaping improvements would occur on the site in the same
manner that would occur under the proposed project. Therefore, this alter-
native would not eliminate or reduce the project’s less-than-significant im-
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-12
pacts to aesthetics. Overall, impacts to aesthetics under this alternative would
be the same as those of the proposed project since development would be ex-
actly the same.
b. Agricultural and Forestry Resources
Similar to the proposed project, no agricultural lands would be impacted by
development on the project site. Therefore, agricultural impacts would be
the same as those of the proposed project. Under Alternative B, grading, tree
and vegetation removal, and new development and landscaping improve-
ments would occur on the site in the same manner that would occur under
the proposed project. Therefore, this alternative would not eliminate or re-
duce the projects less-than-significant impacts to agricultural and forestry re-
sources. Overall, impacts to agricultural and forestry resources under this
alternative would be the same as those of the proposed project
c. Air Quality
Under Alternative B, air quality impacts would occur at the same level as
those of the proposed project. Thus, this alternative would generate the same
degree of fugitive dust and other pollutant emissions associated with construc-
tion activities at the site. Additionally, under Alternative B, the same number
of new traffic trips would be generated and Alternative B would generate pol-
lutant emissions associated with long-term operation of a residential devel-
opment. However, this alternative would generate fewer vehicle miles trav-
eled (VMT) in the region during the summer PM peak hour, which would
result in relatively lower air quality impacts. All mitigation measures that are
applicable to the proposed project would also be applied to Alternative B.
Therefore, this alternative would not eliminate or reduce the projects less-
than-significant or significant-but-mitigable impacts to air quality. Overall,
construction and operational air quality impacts under Alternative B would
be less than that of the proposed project.
d. Biological Resources
Under Alternative B, grading, tree and vegetation removal, and new devel-
opment and landscaping improvements would occur on the site in the same
ALTERNATIVE B (EDINBURGH DRIVE OPEN ACCESS) SITE PLAN
Source: SCO Planning & Engineering, Inc., 2012.
FIGURE 5-1
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
4000 800 FeetNORTH
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-15
manner that would occur under the proposed project. Therefore, this alter-
native would not eliminate or reduce the projects less-than-significant impacts
to biological resources. Furthermore, all mitigation measures that are appli-
cable to the proposed project would also be applied to Alternative B; there-
fore Alternative B would not eliminate or reduce the project’s significant-but-
mitigable impacts to biological resources. Overall, impacts to biological re-
sources under this alternative would be the same as those of the proposed
project.
e. Cultural Resources
Under Alternative B, the ground-disturbing activities would be exactly the
same as those of the proposed project. Therefore, this alternative would not
eliminate or reduce the projects less-than-significant impacts to human re-
mains. All mandatory regulations and mitigation measures that are applicable
to the proposed project would also be applied to Alternative B; therefore Al-
ternative B would not eliminate or reduce the project’s significant-but-
mitigable impacts to unknown archaeological resources or unknown paleon-
tological resources. Overall, impacts to cultural resources under this alterna-
tive would be the same as those of the proposed project.
f. Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
Under Alternative B, new development would occur on the site in the same
manner as that of the proposed project. Therefore, this alternative would not
eliminate the proposed project’s less-than-significant impacts related to
soil/geologic conditions (i.e. seismicity and ground shaking, flooding, lique-
faction, lateral spreading, and expansive and corrosive soils). All mitigation
measures that are applicable to the proposed project would also be applied to
Alternative B; therefore Alternative B would not eliminate or reduce the pro-
ject’s significant-but-mitigable impacts to fault rupture, geologic and soil in-
stabilities and soil erosion/loss of topsoil. Overall, impacts to geology and
soils under this alternative would be the same as those of the proposed pro-
ject.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-16
g. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Under Alternative B, grading, tree and vegetation removal, and new construc-
tion and landscaping improvements would occur at the project site at the
same level as those of the proposed project. However, the open access at Ed-
inburgh Drive would result in less VMT generated. Thus, this alternative
would generate less net increase in GHG emissions as that of the proposed
project. All mitigation measures that are applicable to the proposed project
would also be applied to Alternative B; therefore Alternative B would not
eliminate or reduce the project’s significant-but-mitigable impacts related to
GHG emissions. Overall, impacts from GHG emissions under this alterna-
tive would be less than those of the proposed project.
h. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Under Alternative B, grading, tree and vegetation removal, and new construc-
tion and landscaping improvements would occur at the project site at the
same level as those of the proposed project. This Draft EIR found that poten-
tial impacts associated with the development of the project with respect to the
high voltage transmission line hazards in the project area would be less than
significant; accordingly, the same would be true for Alternative B. Further,
all mitigation measures that are applicable to the proposed project would also
be applied to Alternative B; therefore Alternative B would not eliminate or
reduce the project’s significant-but-mitigable impacts related to introducing a
residential development in an area with a high risk of wildfire hazards. Un-
der Alternative B, with the Edinburgh access open, more project trips would
tend to use surface streets to access locations to the west. Therefore, under an
emergency evacuation situation more vehicles would exit the site to the west.
However, as under the proposed project, intersections between the project
site and major points west and east, including State Route 267 and Interstate
80, would operate under acceptable traffic conditions. Therefore, traffic con-
gestion under Alternative B would not be expected to interfere with emer-
gency evacuation. Overall, impacts from hazards under this alternative
would be the same as those of the proposed project.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-17
i. Hydrology and Water Quality
Under Alternative B, grading, tree and vegetation removal, and new construc-
tion and landscaping improvements would occur at the project site at the
same level as those of the proposed project. Therefore, this alternative would
have the same significant-but-mitigable water quality impacts from the sedi-
mentation of on-site and off-site watercourses and urban runoff associated
with the development on the site. All mitigation measures that are applicable
to the proposed project would also be applied to Alternative B; therefore Al-
ternative B would not eliminate or reduce the projects significant-but-
mitigable impacts related to water quality. Overall, impacts to hydrology and
water quality under this alternative would be the same as those of the pro-
posed project.
j. Land Use and Planning
Under Alternative B, a residential development would occur on the project
site in the same manner as that of the proposed project. Therefore, Alterna-
tive B would meet the intent of the General Plan land use designations for
RES (Residential) 0.5 to 1 dwelling units per acre (du/acre) land use designa-
tions or the Town’s RS-1.0 Zoning District (Single-Family Residential, densi-
ty of 1 du/acre). Furthermore, Alternative B would be consistent with the
Overlay Area 6 land use designation, which requires a planned development
that links access, open space areas, and infrastructure between the properties.
In addition, similar to the proposed project, Alternative B would meet the
intent of the General Plan RC/OS and Town’s OS Zoning District.
Under Alternative B the residential land uses on the site would be consistent
with the overall intent of the General Plan land use designations and the
Town’s zoning districts for the site. Alternative B would achieve a minimum
density of at least 50 percent of the maximum allowed density and Alterna-
tive B would provide affordable housing units consistent with the minimum
15 percent affordable housing allocation for new residential developments (i.e.
eight lots.) As such, impacts related to policy consistency and land use com-
patibility would be considered the same as those of the proposed project un-
der Alternative B.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-18
k. Noise
Under Alternative B, grading, tree and vegetation removal, and new construc-
tion and landscaping improvements would occur at the project site at the
same level as those of the proposed project. Under Alternative B the infra-
structure construction would span an eight-year period and the overall
buildout of the proposed 185 housing lots would span approximately 20
years. However, the traffic patterns would be changed and more traffic
would be distributed on local roadways when compared to the proposed pro-
ject. While the Draft EIR found that only the roadway segment from Martis
Peak Road east of Glenshire Drive would experience an increase in project-
related traffic noise levels, and as noted in the Traffic Impact Analysis, no
local roadways would experience an equivalent volume of traffic; the increase
of trips on local roadways is considered a substantial change. Therefore, this
alternative would result in the same less-than-significant construction impacts,
but potentially greater operational noise impacts compared to the proposed
project.
l. Population and Housing
Similar to the project, Alternative B would result in residential uses on the
project site and as noted above, Alternative B would achieve a minimum den-
sity of at least 50 percent of the maximum allowed density and Alternative B
would provide affordable housing. However, neither Alternative B, nor the
proposed project would displace substantial numbers of existing housing or
people, and would not induce unanticipated growth in the Town. As such,
overall impacts to population and housing would be the same as those of the
proposed project.
m. Public Services (Fire, Police, Schools, and Parks) and Recreation
Similar to the proposed project, Alternative B would result in new develop-
ment of the project site and would change the type and frequency of fire and
police protection services required; therefore, impacts to these services under
Alternative B would be the same as the proposed project. Alternative B
would result in the same amount of new residential housing (i.e. 185 lots) as
that of the proposed project and therefore, would directly contribute to the
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-19
population of school-aged children that could attend the Tahoe-Truckee Uni-
fied School District and would also generate the greatest users of parks and
recreational facilities (families with children); therefore, impacts to schools
and parks would be the same as the proposed project.
Alternative B would also include the 4.5-mile publicly accessible trail system
and recreation center, thus impacts to parks and recreational services would
be the same as those under the proposed project. Accordingly, overall im-
pacts to public services and recreation would be the same as those of the pro-
posed project.
n. Transportation and Traffic
Under Alternative B, the same amount of residential development on the pro-
ject site would occur and as such, the same level of new traffic trips would be
generated. However, unlike the proposed project, under Alternative B the
two proposed vehicular access points at Martis Peak Road to the north of the
project site and Edinburgh Drive to the west of the project site would both
provide unrestricted access.
As analyzed in the Canyon Springs Traffic Impact Analysis which is included in
Appendix I of this Draft EIR,1 this alternative would generate the same num-
ber of trips; however, the Edinburgh Drive access would present many addi-
tional possible route choices. The addition of the Edinburgh Drive route
lessens the travel time advantage of using the Hirschdale Road/Interstate 80
route for trips to/from the west. Therefore, with the Edinburgh access open,
more project trips would tend to use surface streets to access locations to the
west.
Under Alternative B, similar to the proposed project, all traffic impacts
would generally be the same as that of the proposed project including impacts
1 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., 2012. Canyon Springs Traffic Impact
Analysis. August 27, 2012.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-20
to local roadways.2 Figures 5-2 through 5-5 show the net project and total
PM peak hour trips in 2011 and 2031 under this alternative. With the Edin-
burgh Drive connection open to general traffic, the Alternative B is expected
to result in an increase of up to approximately 89 PM peak-hour one-way
trips and 840 average daily traffic (ADT) in 2011, and 91 PM peak-hour trips
and 860 ADT in 2031 on the local roadway segments in the project study ar-
ea. As this increase is less than 1,000 ADT, Alternative B would meet the
Town’s adopted standard for impacts on local residential roadways, so long as
the provisions of Circulation Element Policy P2.4 can be met. As discussed
in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, of this Draft EIR, the project would
be consistent with this policy. Alternative B would also be consistent with
this policy as it would improve connectivity throughout the Town's roadway
network, through roadway improvements, while minimizing environmental,
circulation, and residential neighborhood impacts. Furthermore, with Edin-
burgh Drive open a slightly lower level of project traffic would use the Glen-
shire Drive/Martis Peak Road/Whitehorse Road intersection; however, the
hazardous conditions are existing conditions; therefore, the conclusions re-
garding driver sight distance would not be affected.
Therefore, overall impacts to transportation and traffic under Alternative B
would be similar to those of the proposed project.
o. Utilities and Service Systems (Sewer, Water, Solid Waste, Natural Gas
and Electricity)
Under Alternative B, the same demand for utilities and services would occur
as that of the proposed project. Therefore, impacts to these utilities and ser-
vice systems would be the same as those of the proposed project.
3. Relationship of the Alternative to the Objectives
Under Alternative B, the proposed project would be constructed in the exact
same way as that of the proposed project. However, the gated emergency
2 Alternative B analysis is provided in detail in the Traffic Impact Analysis,
which is provided in Appendix I of this Draft EIR.
CALIFORNIA
0
0
5
4
1
78
6
3
2
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 GLENSHIREDR./
HIRSCHDALED.R615 U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 HIRSCHDALERD./
I-80WESTBOUNDRAMPS8U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 HIRSCHDALERD./
I-80EASTBOUNDRAMPS7GLENSHIREDR./
SOMERSETDR.
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 GLENSHIREDR./
DONNERPASSRD.1
14
JACKSVALLEYRD.
404/449
GLENSHIREDR./MARTIS
PEAKRD./WHITEHORSERD.
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.
JAC
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1 GLENSHIREDR./2
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 GLENSHIREDR./
DORCHESTERDR.3
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
DONNERPASSRD.EXTENSION
0
17
34
0 41
14
-2
-1
430
46 0
0
014 37
00 0
0
0
0
101
36
430
1257
1
11
6
100
0
52
51
0 23 2
0 0 41
0
-1
17
0
-2
103
HIGHWAYS
STREETS
RAILROAD
LAKE
STUDYINTERSECTIONS
TRAFFICMOVEMENT
TRAFFICVOLUME
LEGEND
1
INMILES
SCALE0 .5
8
89
GLENS
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
TRUCKEE
80
80
267
SITEEDINBURGH
11
Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., 2012.
2011 PROJECT NET IMPACT ON PM TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH EDINBURGH ACCESS
FIGURE 5-2
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
CALIFORNIA
0
0
5
4
1
78
6
3
2
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 GLENSHIREDR./
R.DELADHCSRIH615 U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 HIRSCHDALERD./
I-80WESTBOUNDRAMPS8U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 HIRSCHDALERD./
I-80EASTBOUNDRAMPS7GLENSHIREDR./
SOMERSETDR.
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 GLENSHIREDR./
DONNERPASSRD.1
14
JACKSVALLEYRD.
404/449
GLENSHIREDR./MARTIS
PEAKRD./WHITEHORSERD.
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.
JAC
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1 GLENSHIREDR./2
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 GLENSHIREDR./
DORCHESTERDR.3
DONNERPASSRD.EXTENSION
0
12
21
-3
0 12
13
-2
-1
46
16 45
0
013 35
00 0
5
3
0
97
31
320
1464
1
13
7
110
0
50
52
0 17 2
0 0 30
0
-1
17
0
-2
104
24
0 0 26
34
18
HIGHWAYS
STREETS
RAILROAD
LAKE
STUDYINTERSECTIONS
TRAFFICMOVEMENT
TRAFFICVOLUME
LEGEND
1
INMILES
SCALE0 .5
8
89
SITE
GLENS
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
TRUCKEE
EDINBURG
H
80
80
267
Negativenumbersreflecttheshiftinexisting
trafficvolumesthatwouldusethenewprojectroadways.
NOTE:
Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., 2012.
2031 PROJECT NET IMPACT ON PM TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH EDINBURGH ACCESS
FIGURE 5-3
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
CALIFORNIA
0
0
5
4
1
78
6
3
2
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 GLENSHIREDR./
DONNERPASSRD.1
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.
JAC
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1 GLENSHIREDR./2
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 GLENSHIREDR./
DORCHESTERDR.3
FUTURE
INTERSECTION
DONNERPASSRD.EXTENSION
247
238
140
199
368 396
41
3897
195
279
153
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 GLENSHIREDR./
HIRSCHDALED.R615 U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 HIRSCHDALERD./
I-80WESTBOUNDRAMPS8U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 HIRSCHDALERD./
I-80EASTBOUNDRAMPS7GLENSHIREDR./
SOMERSETDR.
14
JACKSVALLEYRD.
404/449
GLENSHIREDR./MARTIS
PEAKRD./WHITEHORSERD.
89
22
5
77
121 133
0
016 45
95 7
2
2
12
254
181
13727
86128
67
60
41 101 54
33 60 110
21
129
21
21
123
112
HIGHWAYS
STREETS
RAILROAD
LAKE
STUDYINTERSECTIONS
TRAFFICMOVEMENT
TRAFFICVOLUME
LEGEND
1
INMILES
SCALE0 .5
8
89
GLENS
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
TRUCKEE
80
80
267
SITEEDINBURGH
Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., 2012.
2011 PM TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH EDINBURGH ACCESS
FIGURE 5-4
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
CALIFORNIA
0
0
5
4
1
78
6
3
2
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 GLENSHIREDR./
DONNERPASSRD.1
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.
JAC
K
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
.
1 GLENSHIREDR./2
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 GLENSHIREDR./
DORCHESTERDR.3
DONNERPASSRD.EXTENSION
203
522
348
46
351 188
54
53120
264
368
205
U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 GLENSHIREDR./
R.DELADHCSRIH615 U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 HIRSCHDALERD./
I-80WESTBOUNDRAMPS8U.S.395/JACKSVALLEYRD.1 HIRSCHDALERD./
I-80EASTBOUNDRAMPS7GLENSHIREDR./
SOMERSETDR.
14
JACKSVALLEYRD.
404/449
GLENSHIREDR./MARTIS
PEAKRD./WHITEHORSERD.
126
34
7
97
163
167
0
016 43
98 112
40
15
144
217
168
15227
120208
54
117
51 179 32
84 24 147
29
131
23
21
123
113
678
32 35 159
125
359
HIGHWAYS
STREETS
RAILROAD
LAKE
STUDYINTERSECTIONS
TRAFFICMOVEMENT
TRAFFICVOLUME
LEGEND
1
INMILES
SCALE0 .5
8
89
GLENS
H
I
R
E
D
R
.
TRUCKEE
80
80
267
SITEEDINBURG
H
Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., 2012.
2031 PM TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH EDINBURGH ACCESS
FIGURE 5-5
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-25
only vehicular access point at Edinburgh Drive would provide unrestricted
access. Therefore, Alternative B would meet all of the project objectives.
E. Alternative C: No Open Space Crossing (185 Lots)
1. Description
Alternative C would be similar to the proposed project with the exception of
project access and lot cluster design. Under Alternative C, the proposed
roadway that connects the eastern and western sides of the project through
the open space area would be gated and restricted to use by emergency vehi-
cles only. Consequently, access to the development would be from Edin-
burgh drive on the west and Martis Peak Road on the north. The west side
would include 64 lots (compared to 100 lots under the proposed project) and
the north side would include 121 lots (compared to 85 lots under the pro-
posed project). The 121 lots on the northern side would be smaller than the
proposed project, resulting in the same development area. The west side
would have fewer lots under Alternative C and the overall building area
would be reduced; however, all buffers between the Glenshire area to the
west would be the same as the proposed project. All other aspects of the pro-
ject would be the same as those described in Chapter 3, Project Description,
of this Draft EIR. A site plan of this alternative is shown in Figure 5-6.
2. Impact Discussion
a. Aesthetics
Under Alternative C, grading, tree and vegetation removal, and new devel-
opment with landscaping improvements would occur on the site in the same
manner that would occur under the proposed project, albeit slightly less on
the west side due to the reduced lots. Therefore, this alternative would not
eliminate or reduce the projects less-than-significant impacts to aesthetics.
Overall, impacts to aesthetics under this alternative would be less than those
of the proposed project since development would be less on the west side.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-26
b. Agricultural and Forestry Resources
Similar to the proposed project, no agricultural lands would be impacted by
development on the project site. Therefore, agricultural impacts would be
the same as those of the proposed project. Under Alternative C, slightly less
tree removal would occur due to less development occurring on the west side.
Therefore, this alternative would not eliminate or reduce the projects less-
than-significant impacts to agricultural and forestry resources, but it would
reduce the impacts. Overall, impacts to agricultural and forestry resources
under this alternative would be less than those of the proposed project.
c. Air Quality
Under Alternative C, grading, tree and vegetation removal, and new con-
struction and landscaping improvements would occur at the project site at
generally the same level as that of the proposed project. Less tree removal
would occur on the west side due to fewer lots. Thus, this alternative would
generate the same degree of fugitive dust and other pollutant emissions associ-
ated with construction activities at the site. Additionally, under Alternative
C, the same number of new traffic trips would be generated resulting in simi-
lar criteria pollutants emission as the proposed project. However, this alter-
native would generate fewer VMT in the region during the summer PM peak
hour due to the open access point at Edinburgh Drive, which would result in
fewer emissions. All mitigation measures that are applicable to the proposed
project would also be applied to Alternative C. Therefore, this alternative
would not eliminate or reduce the project’s less-than-significant or significant-
but-mitigable impacts to air quality. Overall, construction impacts would be
the same as the proposed project and operational air quality impacts would be
less than that of the proposed project.
d. Biological Resources
Under Alternative C, grading, tree and vegetation removal, and new devel-
opment and landscaping improvements would occur on the site in generally
the same manner that would occur under the proposed project, with less de-
velopment occurring on the west side. It is possible that fewer trees would be
retained on the smaller lots in the northern portion of the project site. While
ALTERNATIVE C (NO OPEN SPACE CROSSING) SITE PLAN
Source: SCO Planning & Engineering, Inc., 2012.
FIGURE 5-6
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
4000 800 FeetNORTH
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-29
future traffic would not routinely cross the open space corridor located in the
middle of the site, no impacts were identified in the Draft EIR that would be
reduced by prohibiting such access. Therefore, this alternative would not
eliminate or reduce the projects less-than-significant impacts to biological re-
sources. Furthermore, all mitigation measures that are applicable to the pro-
posed project would also be applied to Alternative C; therefore Alternative C
would not eliminate or reduce the project’s significant-but-mitigable impacts
to biological resources. Overall, impacts to biological resources under this
alternative would be less than those of the proposed project.
e. Cultural Resources
Under Alternative C, the ground-disturbing activities would be generally the
same as those of the proposed project with less development occurring on the
west side. Therefore, this alternative would not eliminate or reduce the pro-
jects less-than-significant impacts to human remains. All mandatory regula-
tions and mitigation measures that are applicable to the proposed project
would also be applied to Alternative C; therefore Alternative C would not
eliminate or reduce the projects significant-but-mitigable impacts to unknown
archaeological resources or unknown paleontological resources. Overall, im-
pacts to cultural resources under this alternative would be the same as those
of the proposed project.
f. Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
Under Alternative C, new development would occur on the site in the same
manner as that of the proposed project, but with less development on the
west side. It is possible that increased grading would occur under this alterna-
tive due to the smaller lot sizes on the northern portion of the project site,
because the smaller lots would require a reduced length to transition drive-
ways into the lots to the finish floor elevation. Therefore, this alternative
would not eliminate the proposed project’s less-than-significant impacts relat-
ed to soil/geologic instabilities (i.e. seismicity and ground shaking, flooding,
liquefaction, lateral spreading, and expansive and corrosive soils). All mitiga-
tion measures that are applicable to the proposed project would also be ap-
plied to Alternative C; therefore Alternative C would not eliminate or reduce
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-30
the projects significant-but-mitigable impacts to fault rupture, geologic and
soil instabilities, and soil erosion/loss of topsoil. Overall, impacts to geology
and soils under this alternative would be the same as those of the proposed
project.
g. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Under Alternative C, grading, tree and vegetation removal, and new con-
struction and landscaping improvements would occur at the project site at
generally the same level as that of the proposed project, but with less devel-
opment on the west side, which would consequently reduce the VMT gener-
ated. Thus, this alternative would generate slightly less net increase in GHG
emissions as that of the proposed project. All mitigation measures that are
applicable to the proposed project would also be applied to Alternative C;
therefore Alternative C would not eliminate or reduce the projects signifi-
cant-but-mitigable impacts related to GHG emissions. Overall, impacts from
GHG emissions under this alternative would be less than those of the pro-
posed project.
h. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Under Alternative C, grading, tree and vegetation removal, and new con-
struction and landscaping improvements would occur at the project site at the
same level as that of the proposed project. This Draft EIR found that poten-
tial impacts associated with the development of the project with respect to the
high voltage transmission line hazards in the project area would be less than
significant; accordingly, the same would be true for Alternative C. Further,
all mitigation measures that are applicable to the proposed project would also
be applied to Alternative C; therefore Alternative C would not eliminate or
reduce the project’s significant-but-mitigable impacts related to introducing a
residential development in an area with a high risk of wildfire hazards. Un-
der Alternative C, as under Alternative B, with the Edinburgh access open,
more project trips would tend to use surface streets to access locations to the
west. Therefore, under an emergency evacuation situation more vehicles
would be expected to exit the site to the west. However, as under the pro-
posed project, intersections between the project site and major points west
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-31
and east, including State Route 267 and Interstate 80, would operate under
acceptable traffic conditions. Therefore, traffic congestion under Alternative
C would not be expected to interfere with emergency evacuation. Overall,
impacts from hazards under this alternative would be the same as those of the
proposed project.
i. Hydrology and Water Quality
Under Alternative C, tree and vegetation removal, and new construction and
landscaping improvements would occur at the project site at the same general
level as that of the proposed project, but with fewer lots on the west side. It
is possible that increased grading would occur under this alternative due to
the smaller lot sizes on the northern portion of the project site, because the
smaller lots would require a reduced length to transition driveways into the
lots to the finish floor elevation. However, this alternative would have gen-
erally the same significant-but-mitigable water quality impacts from the sedi-
mentation of on-site and off-site watercourses and urban runoff associated
with the development on the site. All mitigation measures that are applicable
to the proposed project would also be applied to Alternative C; therefore Al-
ternative C would not eliminate or reduce the projects significant-but-
mitigable impacts related to water quality. Overall, impacts to hydrology and
water quality under this alternative would be the same as those of the pro-
posed project.
j. Land Use and Planning
Under Alternative C, a residential development would occur on the project
site in the same manner as that of the proposed project, but with less devel-
opment on the west side. Therefore, Alternative C would result in the simi-
lar land use impacts compared to those of the proposed project. The closed
access point between the two development areas could promote connectivity
between the two residential areas within Canyon Springs and maintains con-
nection to the adjacent residential areas within Glenshire. For these reasons,
the impacts related to policy consistency and land use compatibility would be
considered the same as those of the proposed project compared to Alternative
C.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-32
k. Noise
Under Alternative C, grading, tree and vegetation removal, and new con-
struction and landscaping improvements would occur at the project site at
generally the same level as that of the proposed project, but with less devel-
opment on the west side. Under Alternative C, the infrastructure construc-
tion would span an eight-year period and the overall buildout of the proposed
185 housing lots would span approximately 20 years. However, the traffic
patterns would be changed and more traffic would be distributed on local
roadways when compared to the proposed project. While the Draft EIR
found that only the roadway segment from Martis Peak Road east of Glen-
shire Drive would experience an increase in project-related traffic noise levels,
and as noted in the Traffic Impact Analysis, no local roadways would experi-
ence an equivalent volume of traffic; the increase of trips on local roadways is
considered a substantial change. Therefore, this alternative would result in
the same less-than-significant construction impacts, but greater operational
noise impacts compared to the proposed project.
l. Population and Housing
Similar to the project, Alternative C would result in residential uses on the
project site and as noted above, Alternative C would achieve a minimum den-
sity of at least 50 percent of the maximum allowed density and Alternative C
would provide affordable housing. However, neither Alternative C nor the
proposed project would displace substantial numbers of existing housing or
people, and would not induce unanticipated growth in the Town. As such,
overall impacts to population and housing would be the same as those of the
proposed project.
m. Public Services (Fire, Police, Schools, and Parks) and Recreation
Similar to the proposed project, Alternative C would result in new develop-
ment of the project site and would change the type and frequency of fire and
police protection services required; therefore, impacts to these services under
Alternative C would be the same as the proposed project. Alternative C
would result in the same amount of new residential housing (i.e. 185 lots) as
that of the proposed project and therefore, would directly contribute to the
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-33
population of school-aged children that could attend the Tahoe-Truckee Uni-
fied School District and would also generate the greatest users of parks and
recreational facilities (families with children); therefore, impacts to schools
and parks would be the same as the proposed project.
Alternative C would also include the 4.5-mile publicly accessible trail system
and recreation center, and would provide more open space than under the
proposed project. Therefore, impacts to parks and recreational services
would be the same as those under the proposed project. Accordingly, overall
impacts to public services and recreation would be the same as those of the
proposed project.
n. Transportation and Traffic
Under Alternative C, the same amount of residential development on the
project site would occur and as such, the same level of new traffic trips would
be generated. However, unlike the proposed project, under Alternative C the
two proposed vehicular access points at Martis Peak Road to the north of the
project site and Edinburgh Drive to the west of the project site would both
provide unrestricted access and the road that crosses the open space area
through the center of the site would be gated for emergency vehicle use only.
Although the west side of the development would contain fewer lots than the
proposed project, vehicle trips on local roadways would be higher due to the
unrestricted access. ADT is projected to increase by 995 average daily trips.
As described above, similar to Alternative B, the site access patterns would be
affected by the change in access options. Under Alternative C, traffic impacts
would be similar to the proposed project trips, which is under the Town’s
standard regarding local road impacts threshold of “not more than 1,000
ADT” under existing and future conditions. Therefore, transportation and
traffic impacts under Alternative C would be similar to those of the proposed
project.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-34
o. Utilities and Service Systems (Sewer, Water, Solid Waste, Natural Gas
and Electricity)
Under Alternative C, the same amount of residential development on the
project site would occur and the same demand for sewer, water supply, solid
waste disposal services, natural gas, or electricity would occur. It is possible
that reduced lot sizes would allow for less flexibility for solar orientation in
building design. Overall, impacts to these utilities and service systems would
be the same as those of the proposed project.
3. Relationship of the Alternative to the Objectives
Under Alternative C, the proposed project would be constructed in generally
the same way as that of the proposed project and therefore, would meet all of
the project objectives.
F. Alternative D: Medium Density Cluster (185 lots)
1. Description
Alternative D would reduce the lot size for each of the 185 proposed residen-
tial lots, which would decrease the overall development area and increase the
open space area from that of the proposed project. Under Alternative D, the
residential lots would be designed to be consistent with the Medium Density
Residential Cluster standards outlined in Table LU-7, Cluster Development
Types and Applicable Land Use Designations, in the Land Use Element of
the 2025 General Plan. As such, the residential lots would cover approxi-
mately 54 acres (approximately 3 to 4 dwelling units/acre) and public open
space areas would cover approximately 230 acres, an increase of 54 acres of
open space from that of the proposed project. The development area would
be reduced approximately 50 percent (53.8 acres versus 107.6 acres). In gen-
eral, all other aspects of the proposed development under Alternative D
would be essentially the same as the proposed project in Chapter 3, Project
Description, of this Draft EIR. A site plan of this alternative is shown in Fig-
ure 5-7.
ALTERNATIVE D (MEDIUM DENSITY CLUSTER) SITE PLAN
Source: SCO Planning & Engineering, Inc., 2012.
FIGURE 5-7
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
4000 800 FeetNORTH
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-37
2. Impact Discussion
a. Aesthetics
Under Alternative D, the area of disturbance would be lower than the pro-
posed project and public open space areas would cover approximately 230
acres, an increase of 54 acres of open space from that of the proposed project
(230 acres versus 176.17 acres). Similar to the proposed project the proposed
residential lots would be sited under the existing tree canopy and would not
be developed on hillsides, prominent slope exposures, ridges, or bluff lines.
Subsequently, no views of the site from high mountain peaks and ridges of
the Sierra Nevada and Carson Range would be adversely impacted. Under
Alternative D, no development would occur within the proposed open space
area and the increased open space areas would provide additional screening of
the residential lots; therefore, adjacent residential land uses and users of the
publically accessible trails network and open space would not be subject to
blocked views of scenic resources, same as the proposed project. The visual
buffer ranging from 100 to 300 feet between the proposed homes and the ex-
isting adjacent homes would be the same as the buffer under the proposed
project. The Draft Design Guidelines prepared for the project would also
apply to the development under Alternative D.
This alternative would not eliminate the project’s less-than-significant impacts
to aesthetics, but would slightly reduce the impacts as fewer tree and vegeta-
tion removal would occur and open space would be increased. Overall, im-
pacts to aesthetics under this alternative would be less than those of the pro-
posed project since the overall development area would be reduced.
b. Agricultural and Forestry Resources
Similar to the proposed project, no agricultural lands would be impacted by
development on the project site. Therefore, agricultural impacts would be
the same as those of the proposed project. Under Alternative D, the area of
disturbance would be reduced by 50 percent and the open space would be
increased by 54 acres. Similar to the proposed project this alternative would
provide the same restoration opportunities as the proposed project. There-
fore, this alternative would not eliminate the projects less-than-significant
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-38
impacts to agricultural and forestry resources, but it would reduce the im-
pacts. Overall, impacts to agricultural and forestry resources under this alter-
native would be less than those of the proposed project.
c. Air Quality
Under Alternative D, grading, tree and vegetation removal, and new devel-
opment with landscaping improvements would occur on the site; however,
the reduced development area would result in less overall grading than the
proposed project. Additionally, under Alternative D, the same number of
new traffic trips would be generated and Alternative D would generate pollu-
tant emissions associated with long-term operation of a residential develop-
ment. All mitigation measures that are applicable to the proposed project
would also be applied to Alternative D. Therefore, this alternative would not
eliminate or reduce the project’s less-than-significant or significant-but-
mitigable impacts to air quality. Overall, construction and operational air
quality impacts under Alternative D would be less than those of the proposed
project.
d. Biological Resources
Under Alternative D, the area of disturbance would be reduced by 50 percent
and the open space would be increased by 54 acres. Fewer trees would be
retained because all the lots on the project site would be smaller than under
the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project this alternative would
provide the same restoration opportunities as the proposed project. Alterna-
tive D would also provide the same level of recreational and open space amen-
ities. Accordingly, this alternative would reduce the project’s less-than-
significant impacts or significant-but-mitigable impacts to biological resources
since the overall development area would be less when compared to the pro-
posed project, and the same restoration opportunities would occur. All miti-
gation measures that are recommended for the proposed project would also
be applied to Alternative D as applicable; therefore Alternative D would re-
sult in less-than-significant impacts to biological resources, same as the pro-
posed project. Overall, impacts to biological resources under this alternative
would be slightly less than those of the proposed project.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-39
e. Cultural Resources
Under Alternative D, the ground-disturbing activities would be less than
those of the proposed project, which reduces potential impacts to cultural
resources. However, because the potential for the discovery of unknown
human remains, unknown archaeological resources and/or unknown paleon-
tological resources would still exist during the construction phase, Alternative
D would not eliminate or reduce the project’s less-than-significant or signifi-
cant-but-mitigable impacts to unknown cultural resources. However, all
mandatory regulations and mitigation measures that are recommended for the
proposed project would also be applied to Alternative D as applicable; there-
fore, impacts to unknown cultural resources would be the same as those of
the proposed project. Furthermore, similar to the proposed project, no con-
struction would occur on the areas within the project site with known cultur-
al resources; therefore, impacts to cultural resources would be the same as
those of the proposed project. Overall, impacts to cultural resources under
this alternative would be the same as those of the proposed project.
f. Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
Under Alternative D, new development would occur on the site in generally
the same manner as that of the proposed project albeit on a smaller area (53.8
acres versus 107.6 acres). It is possible that increased grading would occur
under this alternative due to the reduced lot sizes on the entire site, because
the smaller lots would require a reduced length to transition driveways into
the lots to the finish floor elevation. The reduction in the development area
does not have any bearing on the existing geologic setting of the project site
or project area. Therefore, this alternative would not eliminate the proposed
project’s less-than-significant impacts related to soil/geologic instabilities (i.e.,
seismicity and ground shaking; flooding; liquefaction, lateral spreading; and
expansive and corrosive soils). All mitigation measures that are recommend-
ed for the proposed project would also be applied to Alternative D as applica-
ble; therefore Alternative D would not eliminate or reduce the projects signif-
icant-but-mitigable impacts to fault rupture, geologic and soil instabilities and
soil erosion/loss of topsoil. Overall, impacts to geology and soils under this
alternative would be the same as those of the proposed project.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-40
g. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Under Alternative D, the development area would be reduced by approxi-
mately 50 percent (53.8 acres versus 107.6 acres); however, this would not
reduce the amount of overall development. Accordingly, this alternative
would generate the same net increase in GHG emissions as that of the pro-
posed project. Similar to the proposed project, design features to reduce en-
ergy consumption would be incorporated, and Alternative D would be re-
quired to conform to applicable plans and policies related to energy conserva-
tion and solid waste reduction, and would not conflict with any applicable
plan, policy, or regulation for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions.
Nonetheless, Alternative D would not eliminate or reduce the project’s less-
than-significant impacts related to GHG emissions. Overall, impacts from
GHG emissions under this alternative would be the same as those of the pro-
posed project.
h. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Under Alternative D, the development area would be reduced by 50 percent
from that of the proposed project; however, the introduction of 185 residen-
tial lots would occur on the site, which is considered to have a high risk of
wildfire hazards. Therefore, wildfire hazards would be the same as those of
the proposed project. This Draft EIR found that potential impacts associated
with the development of the project with respect to the high voltage trans-
mission line hazards in the project area would be less than significant; accord-
ingly, the same would be true for Alternative D. Further, all mitigation
measures that are applicable to the proposed project would also be applied to
Alternative D; therefore Alternative D would not eliminate or reduce the
project’s significant-but-mitigable impacts related to introducing a residential
development in an area with a high risk of wildfire hazards. Overall, impacts
from hazards under this alternative would be the same as those of the pro-
posed project.
i. Hydrology and Water Quality
Under Alternative D, new development would occur on the site in generally
the same manner as that of the proposed project albeit on a smaller area (53.8
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-41
acres versus 107.6 acres). However, it is possible that increased grading would
occur under this alternative due to the smaller lot sizes on the project site,
because the smaller lots would require a reduced length to transition drive-
ways into the lots to the finish floor elevation. Alternative D would imple-
ment the same waterway setback standards that are applied to the proposed
project, and all mitigation measures that are applicable to the proposed pro-
ject would also be applied to Alternative D. Therefore, similar to the pro-
posed project, any significant water quality impacts under Alternative D
would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. However, the reduction in
the development area would reduce the potential for water quality impacts
from the sedimentation of on-site and off-site watercourses and urban runoff
associated with the development on the site. Therefore, overall impacts to
hydrology and water quality under this alternative would be less than those
of the proposed project.
j. Land Use and Planning
Under Alternative D, a residential development would occur on the project
site in the same manner as that of the proposed project, but on a reduced area
(53.8 acres versus 107.6 acres). Therefore, Alternative D would meet the in-
tent of the General Plan land use designations for RES (Residential) 0.5 to 1
du/acre land use designations or the Town’s RS-1.0 Zoning District (Single-
Family Residential, density of 1 du/acre). Furthermore, Alternative D would
be consistent with the Overlay Area 6 land use designation, which requires a
planned development that links access, open space areas, and infrastructure
between the properties. In addition, similar to the proposed project, Alterna-
tive D would meet the intent of the General Plan RC/OS and Town’s OS
Zoning District.
Alternative D would achieve a minimum density of at least 50 percent of the
maximum allowed density, and Alternative D would provide affordable hous-
ing units consistent with the minimum 15 percent affordable housing alloca-
tion for new residential developments (i.e. eight lots). Under Alternative D, a
trail would connect to the Town’s proposed recreational trail corridor as
identified in the Town of Truckee Trails & Bikeways Master Plan. Further-
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-42
more, Alternative D would preserve approximately 230 acres of public open
space. Overall, impacts related to policy consistency and land use compatibil-
ity under Alternative D would be considered the same as those of the pro-
posed project.
k. Noise
Under Alternative D, similar to the proposed project, the same number of
new homes would occur on the project site, and therefore the same number
of trips would be generated. Under Alternative D, the infrastructure con-
struction would span an eight-year period and the overall buildout of the
proposed 185 housing lots would span approximately 20 years. Therefore,
this alternative would result in the same less-than-significant construction and
operational noise impacts as those of the proposed project.
l. Population and Housing
Similar to the project, Alternative D would result in residential uses on the
project site and as noted above, Alternative D would achieve a minimum den-
sity of at least 50 percent of the maximum allowed density and Alternative D
would provide affordable housing. However, neither Alternative D nor the
proposed project would displace substantial numbers of existing housing or
people, and would not induce unanticipated growth in the Town. As such,
overall impacts to population and housing would be the same as those of the
proposed project.
m. Public Services (Fire, Police, Schools, and Parks) and Recreation
Similar to the proposed project, Alternative D would result in new develop-
ment of the project site and would change the type and frequency of fire and
police protection services required; therefore, impacts to these services under
Alternative D would be the same as the proposed project. Alternative D
would result in the same amount of new residential housing (i.e. 185 lots) as
that of the proposed project and therefore, would directly contribute to the
population of school-aged children that could attend the Tahoe-Truckee Uni-
fied School District. Furthermore, Alternative D would also generate the
greatest users of parks and recreational facilities (families with children);
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-43
therefore, impacts to schools and parks would be the same as the proposed
project.
Alternative D would also include the same publicly accessible trail system and
recreation center and would provide more open space than under the pro-
posed project. Therefore, impacts to parks and recreational services would be
the same as those under the proposed project. Accordingly, overall impacts
to public services and recreation would be the same as those of the proposed
project.
n. Transportation and Traffic
Under Alternative D, the same amount of residential development on the
project site would occur and as such, the same level of new traffic trips would
be generated under both 2011 and 2031 conditions. As with the proposed
project, vehicular access at Edinburgh Drive would be restricted to emergency
vehicles only. All mitigation measures that are applicable to the proposed
project would also be applied to Alternative D; therefore Alternative D
would not eliminate or reduce the project’s significant-but-mitigable impacts
related to transportation and traffic. Overall, impacts to transportation and
traffic under this alternative would be the same as those of the proposed pro-
ject.
o. Utilities and Service Systems (Sewer, Water, Solid Waste, Natural Gas
and Electricity)
Under Alternative D, the same amount of residential development on the
project site would occur and like the proposed project the same demand for
sewer, water supply, solid waste disposal services, natural gas, or electricity
would occur. It is possible that reduced lot sizes would reduce flexibility for
solar orientation in building design. Overall, impacts to these utilities and
service systems would be the same as those of the proposed project.
p. Relationship of the Alternative to the Objectives
Alternative D would meet all of the project objectives given the similarity to
the proposed project.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-44
G. Alternative E: Reduced Density (88 Lots)
1. Description
Alternative E is a reduced density development that proposes the number of
lots would be reduced by 53 percent compared to the proposed project (88
lots compared to 185 lots) over the proposed development area of 107.59
acres. Under this alternative the development area would essentially be the
same as the proposed project; however, the lot sizes would be larger than
those of the proposed project. Alternative E would result in one dwelling
unit per 1.2 acres. All other development aspects of Alternative E would be
the same as those of the proposed project described in Chapter 3, Project De-
scription, of this Draft EIR. A site plan of this alternative is shown in Figure
5-8.
2. Impact Discussion
a. Aesthetics
Under Alternative E, fewer homes would be constructed and housing lots
would be larger than those of the proposed project. Similar to the proposed
project the lots would be sited under the existing tree canopy and would not
be developed on hillsides, prominent slope exposures, ridges, or bluff lines.
Subsequently, no views of the site from high mountain peaks and ridges of
the Sierra Nevada and Carson Range would be adversely impacted. Under
Alternative E, no development would occur within the proposed public open
space area and the public open space areas would provide screening of the
residential lots; therefore, as with the proposed project adjacent residential
land uses and users of the publically accessible trails network and public open
space would not be subject to blocked views of scenic resources. Develop-
ment areas and visual buffers ranging from 100 to 300 feet between the pro-
posed homes and the existing adjacent homes would be the same as the pro-
posed project. The Draft Design Guidelines prepared for the project would
also apply to the development under Alternative E.
Therefore, this alternative would not eliminate the project’s less-than-
significant impacts to aesthetics, but would slightly reduce the area of disturb-
ance, including trees and vegetation. Overall, impacts to aesthetics under this
ALTERNATIVE E (REDUCED DENSITY) SITE PLAN
Source: SCO Planning, Engineering & Surveying.
FIGURE 5-8
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
3000 600 FeetNORTH
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-47
alternative would be less than those of the proposed project since the devel-
opment would be reduced from that of the proposed project.
b. Agricultural and Forestry Resources
Similar to the proposed project, no agricultural lands would be impacted by
development on the project site. Therefore, agricultural impacts would be
the same as those of the proposed project. Under Alternative E, the overall
development area would be the same as that of the proposed project, but the
development on individual housing lots would be reduced from that of the
proposed project; therefore, fewer trees would likely be removed and less land
disturbance would occur when compared to the proposed project. Similar to
the proposed project this alternative would provide the same restoration op-
portunities and amenities. Accordingly, this alternative would reduce the
project’s less-than-significant impacts to agricultural and forestry resources.
Overall, impacts to agricultural and forestry under this alternative would be
less than those of the proposed project.
c. Air Quality
Under Alternative E, less fugitive dust and other criteria pollutant emissions
associated with construction activities at the site would be generated. Addi-
tionally, under Alternative E, the development of 88 housing units would
generate lower traffic volumes overall and therefore fewer air emissions asso-
ciated with long-term operation of a residential development. All mitigation
measures that are applicable to the proposed project would also be applied to
Alternative E. Therefore, this alternative would slightly reduce the project’s
less-than-significant or significant-but-mitigable impacts to air quality, but
would not eliminate the impacts. Overall, construction and operational air
quality impacts under Alternative E would be less than that of the proposed
project.
d. Biological Resources
Under Alternative E, the overall development area would be the same as that
of the proposed project, but the development on individual housing lots
would be reduced from that of the proposed project. Therefore, less land
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-48
disturbance would occur when compared to the proposed project. Similar to
the proposed project this alternative would provide the same restoration op-
portunities and amenities. Accordingly, this alternative would reduce the
project’s less-than-significant impacts or significant-but-mitigable impacts to
biological resources. All mitigation measures that are recommended for the
proposed project would also be applied to Alternative E as applicable; there-
fore Alternative E would result in less-than-significant impacts to biological
resources, same as the project. Overall, impacts to biological resources under
this alternative would be less than those of the proposed project.
e. Cultural Resources
Under Alternative E, the ground-disturbing activities would be generally the
same as those of the proposed project since the overall development area
would be the same. Therefore, this alternative would be a slight improve-
ment to the proposed project. All mandatory regulations and mitigation
measures that are recommend for the proposed project would also be applied
to Alternative E as applicable; therefore Alternative E would not eliminate or
reduce the projects significant-but-mitigable impacts to unknown archaeolog-
ical resources or unknown paleontological resources. Overall, impacts to
cultural resources under this alternative would be less than those of the pro-
posed project, because of less ground disturbance.
f. Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
Under Alternative E, new development would occur on the site in the same
manner as that of the proposed project albeit with fewer residential lots (88
lots compared to 185 lots). However, as with any development on the site,
the reduction in the development area does not have any bearing on the exist-
ing geologic setting of the project site or project area. Therefore, this alterna-
tive would not eliminate the proposed project’s less-than-significant impacts
related to soil/geologic conditions. All mitigation measures that are recom-
mended for the proposed project would also be applied to Alternative E as
applicable; therefore Alternative E would not eliminate or reduce the projects
significant-but-mitigable impacts to fault rupture, geologic and soil instabili-
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-49
ties and soil erosion/loss of topsoil. Overall, impacts to geology and soils
under this alternative would be the same as those of the proposed project.
g. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Under Alternative E, the development area would be the same as that of the
proposed project; however, homes would be constructed resulting in fewer
GHG emissions than those of the proposed project. Similar to the proposed
project design features to reduced energy consumption would be incorpo-
rated, and Alternative E would be in conformance with applicable plans and
policies related to energy conservation and solid waste reduction, and would
not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation for the purpose of
reducing GHG emissions. Nonetheless, Alternative E would not eliminate or
reduce the project’s less-than-significant impacts related to GHG emissions,
but overall, impacts from GHG emissions under this alternative would be less
than those of the proposed project.
h. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Under Alternative E, the development area would be the same as that of the
proposed project, but fewer homes would ultimately be constructed (88 lots
versus 185 lots) than the proposed project and the introduction of residential
lots in an area considered to have a high risk of wildfire hazards would occur.
Therefore, wildfire hazards would be the same as those of the proposed pro-
ject. This Draft EIR found that potential impacts associated with the devel-
opment of the project with respect to the high voltage transmission line haz-
ards in the project area would be less than significant; accordingly, the same
would be true for Alternative E. Further, all mitigation measures that are
applicable to the proposed project would also be applied to Alternative E;
therefore Alternative E would not eliminate or reduce the project’s signifi-
cant-but-mitigable impacts related to introducing a residential development in
an area with a high risk of wildfire hazards. Overall, impacts from hazards
under this alternative would be the same as those of the proposed project.
i. Hydrology and Water Quality
Under Alternative E, the overall development area would be the same as that
of the proposed project, but less development would occur (88 lots compared
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-50
to 185 lots). Accordingly, the overall grading, tree and vegetation removal,
and new construction and landscaping improvements would be less than that
of the proposed project. Alternative E would implement the same waterway
setback standards that are applied to the proposed project, and all mitigation
measures that are applicable to the proposed project would also be applied to
Alternative E. Therefore, this alternative would reduce the potential for wa-
ter quality impacts from the sedimentation of on-site and off-site watercourses
and urban runoff associated with the development on the site same as the
proposed project. Overall, impacts to hydrology and water quality under this
alternative would be less than those of the proposed project since less devel-
opment would occur.
j. Land Use and Planning
Under Alternative E, a reduced density residential development is proposed.
Therefore, Alternative E would meet the intent of the General Plan land use
designations for RES (Residential) 0.5 to 1 du/acre land use designations or
the Town’s RS-1.0 Zoning District (Single-Family Residential, density of 1
du/acre). Furthermore, Alternative E would be consistent with the Overlay
Area 6 land use designation, which requires a planned development that links
access, open space areas, and infrastructure between the properties. In addi-
tion, similar to the proposed project, Alternative E would meet the intent of
the General Plan RC/OS and Town’s OS Zoning District. However, Alter-
native E would not achieve a minimum density of at least 50 percent of the
maximum allowed density.
As with any development on the project site, a minimum 15 percent afforda-
ble housing allocation for new residential developments would be required
under Alternative E. Under Alternative E, a trail would connect to the
Town’s proposed recreational trail corridor as identified in the Town of
Truckee Trails and Bikeways Master Plan. Furthermore, Alternative E would
preserve 176.17 acres of public open space, as under the proposed project.
Overall, since Alternative E would not meet the minimum density standards,
impacts would be considered greater than those of the proposed project.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-51
k. Noise
Under Alternative E, fewer new homes would occur on the project site and
therefore fewer vehicle trips would be generated. Under Alternative E the
infrastructure construction would span an eight-year period and the overall
buildout of the proposed 88 housing lots would span approximately 20 years,
same as the proposed project. Therefore, while this alternative would result
in the same less-than-significant construction and operational noise impacts as
those of the proposed project, the overall noise impacts would be less due to
fewer vehicle trips and less overall construction.
l. Population and Housing
Similar to the proposed project, Alternative E would result in residential uses
on the project site. As noted above, Alternative E would not achieve a mini-
mum density of at least 50 percent of the maximum allowed density, but
would provide affordable housing as required. However, neither Alternative
E nor the proposed project would displace substantial numbers of existing
housing or people, and would not induce unanticipated growth in the Town.
As such, overall impacts to population and housing would be the same as
those of the proposed project.
m. Public Services (Fire, Police, Schools, and Parks) and Recreation
Similar to the proposed project, Alternative E would result in new develop-
ment of the project site and would change the type and frequency of fire and
police protection services required albeit less than that of the proposed pro-
ject, and impacts to these services under Alternative E would be the similar to
those of the proposed project. Alternative E would result new residential
housing and therefore, would directly contribute to the population of school-
aged children that could attend the Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District.
Alternative E would also generate the greatest users of parks and recreational
facilities (families with children); therefore, impacts to schools and parks
would be the similar to that of the proposed project.
Alternative E would also include the publicly accessible trail system and rec-
reation center, thus impacts to parks and recreational services would be the
same as those under the proposed project. Accordingly, overall impacts to
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-52
public services and recreation would generally be the less when compared to
those of the proposed project as fewer residential lots are proposed.
n. Transportation and Traffic
Under Alternative E, less residential development on the project site would
occur and as such, fewer new traffic trips would be generated under both 2011
and 2031 conditions. Because the mitigation measures that are recommended
for the proposed project are required to improve existing deficiencies to
which the addition of any new trips would result in significant impact, the
mitigation measures would also be applied to Alternative E as applicable;
therefore Alternative E would not eliminate or reduce the project’s signifi-
cant-but-mitigable impacts related to transportation and traffic. Overall, im-
pacts to transportation and traffic under this alternative would generally be
the less than those of the proposed project since fewer trips would be generat-
ed.
3. Utilities and Service Systems (Sewer, Water, Solid Waste, Natural
Gas and Electricity)
Under Alternative E, less residential development on the project site would
occur and therefore less demand for sewer, water supply, solid waste disposal
services, natural gas, or electricity would occur. Therefore, impacts to these
utilities and service systems would be the less than those of the proposed pro-
ject.
4. Relationship of the Alternative to the Objectives
Under Alternative E, the proposed project would be constructed in a similar
manner as that of the proposed project, but with fewer residential lots.
Therefore, Alternative E would meet all of the project objectives.
H. Environmentally Superior Alternative
In addition to the discussion and comparison of impacts of the proposed pro-
ject and the alternatives, Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines re-
quires that an “environmentally superior” alternative be selected and the rea-
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-53
sons for such a selection disclosed. In general, the environmentally superior
alternative is the alternative that would be expected to generate the least
amount of significant impacts. Identification of the environmentally superior
alternative is an informational procedure and the alternative selected may not
be the alternative that best meets the goals or needs of the Town. The project
under consideration cannot be identified as the Environmentally Superior
Alternative. Additionally, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Sec-
tion 15126.6(e)(2), if the Environmentally Superior Alternative is the “no pro-
ject” alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior al-
ternative among the other alternatives.
As discussed in the analysis above, Alternative D (Medium Density Cluster:
185 lots) and Alternative E (Reduced Density Alternative: 88 lots) would re-
sult in less development than that of the proposed project and would there-
fore reduce the less-than-significant impacts to aesthetics and the significant-
but-mitigable impacts to air quality, biological resources, and hydrology and
water quality. Further, Alternative E would also reduce the project’s less-
than-significant impacts to cultural resources, GHG emissions, noise, and
public services, and the project’s significant-but-mitigable impacts to transpor-
tation and traffic due to the reduced number of lots. For these reasons, Alter-
ative D is considered the Environmentally Superior Alternative. Alternative
D would meet the project objectives, decrease the overall development area
and increase the open space area from that of the proposed project and, with
185 lots, would achieve the minimum density of at least 50 percent of the
maximum allowed density.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
5-54
6 CEQA REQUIRED ASSESSMENT
6-1
This chapter provides an overview of the impacts of the proposed project
based on the technical analyses presented in Chapters 4 and 5. The topics
covered in this chapter include growth inducement, unavoidable significant
impacts, and significant irreversible changes. A more detailed analysis of the
effects the proposed project would have on the environment is provided in
Chapter 4 of this document. Project alternatives are discussed in Chapter 5.
A. Growth Inducement
Section 15126.2(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR discuss
the ways in which a proposed project could foster economic or population
growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirect-
ly, in the surrounding environment. Typical growth inducing factors might
be the extension of urban services or transportation infrastructure to a previ-
ously unserved or under-served area, or the removal of major barriers to de-
velopment. This section evaluates the proposed project’s potential to create
such growth inducements. Not all growth inducement is negative. Negative
impacts associated with growth inducement occur only where the project
growth would cause adverse environmental impacts.
1. Population Generation
The 2025 General Plan includes policies to control how growth occurs within
Truckee and the sphere in order to ensure that it is well-managed; infill de-
velopment is encouraged, as is development adjacent to existing developed
areas. Within this framework, the proposed project would result in the de-
velopment of 185 new housing lots and a corresponding increase in the
Town’s population of approximately 468 persons. This would represent a
three percent increase in relation to the Town’s recent U.S. Census popula-
tion count of 16,180 persons over the buildout of the proposed project. As
concluded in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, of this Draft EIR, the pro-
ject’s proposed 185 lots is consistent with the General Plan land use designa-
tion RES (Residential) which permits 0.5 to 1 dwelling units per acre
(du/acre) and the proposed project meets the Town’s current property zoning
allowing for 213 residential units (RS-1). Infrastructure associated with the
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
CEQA REQUIRED ASSESSMENT
6-2
project would serve the project site and would not facilitate additional devel-
opment as a result of increased infrastructure. Therefore, no growth beyond
the direct growth would occur under the project. The project would comply
with the mandatory Affordable Housing component calculated in accordance
with the Town Housing Element Program H-1.3.2, which requires a mini-
mum 15 percent affordable housing allocation for new residential develop-
ments (i.e. eight lots.)1
2. Improvements to Infrastructure
The project site is located in an area that is surrounded by open space and
residential land use developments and is generally served by existing road-
ways, utility infrastructure, and service systems. The new off-site utility in-
frastructure that would facilitate adequate water supply to the proposed pro-
ject would only serve the project site and would not facilitate additional de-
velopment as the surrounding residential area is generally built-out and ade-
quately served by existing utility infrastructure.
Mitigation measures recommended in Section 4.14, Transportation and Traf-
fic, of this Draft EIR, would, if implemented, result in modifications to the
existing intersections or roadway segments in the Town’s transportation net-
work. However, these changes would be made to existing facilities and
would not result in the extension of new roadways into undeveloped portions
of the Town. As a result, they are not expected to induce growth.
3. Employment Generation
Development under the proposed project would generate some construction-
related employment opportunities. The project’s labor force would be ex-
pected to be primarily local. Given the number of workers with applicable
skills who reside in Truckee and other adjacent counties, it is unlikely that a
substantial number of construction workers would relocate to Truckee to
work on the proposed project. Thus the proposed project would not be con-
sidered growth-inducing from an employment perspective.
1 Town of Truckee 2007-2014 Housing Element Appendix HD, Past Perfor-
mance, page HD-3.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
CEQA REQUIRED ASSESSMENT
6-3
There is no long-term employment opportunities associated with the devel-
opment of the residential project. In addition, due to the location of the pro-
ject it is not anticipated that the proposed residential uses would have the po-
tential to create demand for businesses to locate near the site and this effect is
would be less than significant. The project is not a regionally significant em-
ployer, and although the project would provide employment opportunities,
fostering some economic growth, most of the jobs would likely be filled by
people in the local employment base, and the project would not induce addi-
tional population growth. Therefore, the project would result in growth in
the Truckee due to only the projected increase in population and dwelling
units. The project growth would result in less than significant impacts in
relation to regional projections.
B. Unavoidable Significant Impacts
Section 15126.2(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR de-
scribe any significant impacts that cannot be avoided, even with the imple-
mentation of feasible mitigation measures. All project and cumulative im-
pacts were found to be less than significant and less than significant with mit-
igation.
C. Significant Irreversible Changes
Section 15126.2(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to discuss
the extent to which a proposed project would commit nonrenewable re-
sources to uses that future generations would probably be unable to reverse.
The three CEQA-required categories of irreversible changes are discussed
below.
1. Changes in Land Use that Commit Future Generations
The proposed development would be located on land that is generally unde-
veloped. The site was logged some years ago and many if not most of the
larger trees were removed. A well-developed network of unpaved roads and
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
CEQA REQUIRED ASSESSMENT
6-4
trails is distributed throughout the site, and the project site is accessed by sur-
rounding subdivision residents through connecting trails and experiences
year-round unauthorized use. Once the site is developed as proposed, it
would not be feasible to return it to its existing (pre-project) condition. As
such, future generations of residents and visitors to the site and areas in prox-
imity to it would be committed to the proposed change in land use for the
foreseeable future.
2. Irreversible Damage from Environmental Accidents
Potential environmental accidents of concern include those that would have
adverse effects on the environment or public health due to the nature or
quantity of material released during an accident and the receptors exposed to
that release.
As described in Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this Draft
EIR, the project is a residential development and would not include the rou-
tine transport of hazardous materials. In addition, the project site is not on a
list of hazardous materials sites pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5. Demolition and construction activities would involve some risk for
environmental accidents. However, these activities would be monitored by
Town, State and federal agencies, and would follow professional industry
standards for safety and construction. During the operational phase of the
project, the project would not include any uses or activities that are likely to
contribute to or be the cause of significant environmental accident. As a re-
sult, the project would not pose a substantial risk of environmental accidents.
3. Large Commitment of Nonrenewable Resources
Construction and ongoing maintenance of the proposed project would irre-
versibly commit some materials and non-renewable energy resources. Mate-
rials and resources used would include, but are not limited to, nonrenewable
and limited resources such as oil, gasoline, sand and gravel, asphalt, and steel.
These materials and energy resources would be used for grading, infrastruc-
ture development, transportation of people and goods, and utilities. During
the operational phase of the project (post-construction), energy sources in-
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
CEQA REQUIRED ASSESSMENT
6-5
cluding oil and gasoline would be used for construction, lighting, heating, and
cooling of residences, and transportation of people within, to, and from the
project site.
As explained in Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of this Draft EIR, the
proposed project includes features that would reduce its amount of energy
demand over the long-term. However, energy usage by new development
under the proposed project would result in the overall increased use of non-
renewable resources. This represents a significant irreversible environmental
change.
None of the land on the project site is used for agriculture or forestry related
production, or designated for agricultural or forestry uses in the Town of
Truckee or Nevada County General Plans. Thus, new development under
the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts to agricul-
tural or forest resources.
There are no known mineral resources located on the project site or in the
soils below it. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any signif-
icant impacts to the extraction or use of mineral resources.
Overall, the implementation of the proposed project would require a com-
mitment of nonrenewable resources.
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
CEQA REQUIRED ASSESSMENT
6-6
7 REPORT PREPARATION
7-1
This report was prepared by the following consultants and individuals:
A. Lead Consultant
The Planning Center | DC&E
1625 Shattuck Avenue, Suite 300
Berkeley, CA 94709
(510) 848-3815 (ph)
(510) 848-4315 (fax)
www.dceplanning.com
The project team included:
David Early, Principal
Terri McCracken, Associate
Alexis Mena, Associate
Seung Hong, Planner
Melissa McDonough, Planner
B. Subconsultants
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise
LSA Associates, Inc.
5084 N. Fruit Avenue, Suite 103
Fresno, CA 93711
Biological Resources
LSA Associates, Inc.
4200 Rocklin Road, Suite 11B
Rocklin, CA 95677
Foothill Associates, Inc.
140 Yellowstone Drive, Suite 100
Chico, CA 95973
TOWN OF TRUCKEE
CANYON SPRINGS DRAFT EIR
REPORT PREPARATION
7-2
Cultural Resources
LSA Associates, Inc.
157 Park Place
Pt. Richmond, CA 94801
Hydrology
Integrated Environmental Restoration Services, Inc. (IERS)
2780 Lake Forest Road
Tahoe City, CA 96145
Transportation and Circulation
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2690 Lake Forest Road, Suite C (PO Box 5875)
Tahoe City, CA 96145